Rook - Q5* 3 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS : 



WITH AN INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER 

ON THE 

MORAL RESULTS OP THE EOMISH SYSTEM. 



BY THE 

REV. M. HOBART SEYMOUR, M.A. 



FLEET STREET, and HANOVER STREET, 
LONDON : MDCCCLIV. 



CONTENTS. 



INTRODUCTORY LETTER, TO THE RIGHT HON. 

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON IX 



THE MORAL RESULTS OP THE ROMISH SYSTEM. xiii 



THE READING OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 'page 1 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, . . 36 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. . . 62 



THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. . 79 



vi CONTENTS. 

APOSTOLICITY OP THE CHURCH. . . 94 

CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. . . 136 

THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE IN 

PUBLIC WORSHIP. . . . 144 

PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. . . . 167 

INVOCATION OF SAINTS. . . . 193 

THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. . 217 

THE VIRGIN MARY 239 

THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. . . 274 

THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. . . 289 

THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. . 313 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. . . , . 332 



CONTENTS. vii 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.— II. . 351 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION. — III. . . 372 

HALF-COMMUNION 386 

PURGATORY. — I. . . . . 407 

PURGATORY. —II. .... 423 

THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME 438 

INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH, . 467 

THE ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. . 503 



TO THE 

RIGHT HON. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, M.P. 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT, 



My Lord, 

The subject of these pages concerns the duties of that 
high office — the Home Department — which Her Most 
Gracious Majesty has committed to your charge. 

It has been the fortune of the humble individual who 
now addresses you, to have travelled much in other lands 
during the period in which you held the seals of the Foreign 
Office. It was a period of surpassing difficulty — a period 
when the storm of the popular passions burst upon Europe, 
and the first wave of the coming tide, the inevitable tide of 
free institutions, broke upon the nations in 1848. I was 
witness to the manner in which your name was received 
throughout Europe. It was received with a noble and a 
generous enthusiasm, and has become enshrined in the 
popular mind of the nations. It is the watchword of con- 
stitutional progress. 

I felt then as I feel now, no ordinary pride in the posi- 



X 



DEDICATION. 



tion of one, in whose political principles generally I have 
long participated ; and I rejoiced to think you had attained 
that enviable distinction in these times, that while your 
name was hailed with enthusiasm by the popular feeling of 
foreign nations, you were proclaimed by a voice which finds 
an echo in every land in Europe, to be essentially a British 
Minister. 

My earnest hope — and pardon me, if indeed it needs 
pardon, when I add, my earnest prayer, to Him whose I 
am, and whom I serve — is, that one who proved himself a 
British Minister in the Foreign Office, may be found also a 
British Minister in the Home Office ; and that no foreign 
— especially no Italian power — shall obtain with your sanc- 
tion, an undue influence in the affairs of this nation. 

I have desired to extend not only toleration, but every 
civil privilege to all religious denominations. Whatever 
be the rights, privileges, or liberties which I myself enjoy, 
I would freely extend to others ; whether they are Episco- 
palian or Presbyterian, Churchmen or Nonconformists, 
Protestant or Romanist. But this desire does not in- 
volve the wish to patronize, encourage, multiply, befriend 
with a special and peculiar favour an Italian priesthood, 
over and beyond the ministries of the other non-conform- 
ing communons, or to sanction the introduction of Italian 
institutions into this country. I wish to see your Lordship, 
in religious as well as political matters, essentially a British 
Minister. 

With this feeling I have presumed to ask your attention 
to the following pages. They relate to the effect on crime 
and immorality produced by the Italian system in all lands 
where it has influence ; and they are thus far a warning 



DEDICATION. 



XI 



against the unnecessary encouragement of an Italian priest- 
hood or Italian institutions in this country. 

Considering the peculiar functions of your high office, I 
trust that I need scarcely ask your forgiveness for troub- 
ling you with these pages. I have only to say in apology, 
that my earnest desire and hope is, that they may be 
regarded as important even in a slight degree — that they 
may prove an item, however small, in influencing your de- 
termination on such questions, as concern the influence of 
the church of Rome. And that thus you may respond 
to the earnest and thrilling cry of this great and Protestant 
and Christian country, and stand forth before the nations 
abroad, as, in matters religious as well as in matters political, 
essentially the Minister of England. 

I remain, my Lord, 

Your very obedient Servant, 

M. Hobart Seymour. 



Marlborough Buildings, Bath. 
June 16, 1854. 



MORAL RESULTS OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



That the amount of crime in this country is too high, and 
the spread of immorality too extensive, is the lament of 
every good man. 

It has been suggested, that new means should be tried 
to keep down the surging of crime, and restrain the deluge 
of immorality, and, — in the subtle spirit of a certain party 
among us, — it is argued, that convents, and nunneries, and 
confessionals, so long banished from among us, should 
again be introduced, at least in some modified form, on 
the principle that as the restraints and motives, which our 
Protestant Christianity imposes upon crime and immorality, 
have confessedly failed, there ought now to be trial made 
of the restraints and motives, which are supplied by the 
institutions of the church of Rome. 

The most natural mode of dealing with this suggestion 
is an enquiry, as to whether the motives and restraints sup- 
plied by the church of Rome have succeeded so well, or 
whether they have succeeded at all, in those countries where 
they have been tried — whether convents, nunneries, and 
confessionals, have succeeded in suppressing crime, and 

b 



xiv 



MORAL RESULTS 



lessening immorality in those countries, where Romanism 
is the established religion, as well as the popular belief — 
where all the laws and institutions of the land assist in 
giving them efficiency, and where therefore they are tried 
under circumstances the most favourable for their efficient 
development ; in short, whether they have succeeded in 
such countries, as well as the principles of our Protestant 
Christianity have succeeded in England. 

It is evident that a problem of this kind should be worked, 
not on the guesses or opinions of travellers, who seldom see 
beneath the surface ; nor on the statements of public jour- 
nals, which are generally the organs of a party, but on evi- 
dence of the clearest kind — evidence removed from party, 
and free from prejudice. This evidence is in existence ; al- 
most every government in Europe receives regular returns 
of the amount of crime and immorality in their respective 
States every year. These returns form a mass of statistical 
tables, compiled without political partizanship or religious 
prejudice. The taint of suspicion cannot approach them. 

To this evidence I invite the attention of calm and think- 
ing men. 

In England, we enjoy the noble and ennobling privilege of 
a Free Press. It is the strong right arm that protects our 
civil liberties, and the broad shield that covers our religious 
freedom. Its advantages are so vast, that we may well bear 
with its few disadvantages. Among these latter is the 
publicity which it gives to the amount of crime in this 
country. It delights in unmasking and exposing the cri- 
minal. It allows no delinquency to be concealed. It drags 
everything to the light of day, and publishes it to the world : 
and in so doing it seems to multiply our crimes. When 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



XV 



any crime of atrocity and blood is perpetrated, the press im- 
mediately details the particulars, and denounces the criminal; 
this is its first appearance. Soon afterwards the Coroner 
holds his inquest, and the evidence is detailed, and a verdict 
pronounced, and all again is published. This is the second 
appearance. Some weeks afterwards the accused is arrested 
and evidence is again taken before the magistrates, and he 
is committed ; and now all appears again in the journals of 
the day. This is the third appearance. And as months per- 
haps roll by, and the assizes arrive, and the accused stands 
his trial, under all the solemnities of our tribunals, and the 
whole details are re-opened, all is again published to the 
world. This is the fourth appearance. And thus the press 
seems to multiply our crimes ; one murder seems to become 
four, and to the eye of a stranger the country is at least 
three times more guilty than it is. On the continent, how- 
ever, there is nothing like this, and not one crime in ten is 
ever noticed in the journals. 

This renders it all the more necessary that we should 
work out the problem now before us, neither on the opi- 
nions of travellers nor on the publicity of our journals, but 
on the official and governmental returns of the several 
countries. 

It would be a needless waste of time, and an unnecessary 
complication of figures to touch on every class of crime. 
I select one, the highest of all crimes — murder. 

I shall commence with the criminal calendar of Protes- 
tant England, and then proceed in order to the several 
Roman Catholic countries of Europe. 

By the tables laid before Parliament, and published by 
order of the House in 1852, we are in possession not only 
b 2 



XVI 



MORAL RESULTS 



of the state of the criminal calendar in 1851, but of its state 
for the ten years preceding. From these tables it appears 
that the total number of persons committed in 1851 for 
the crime of murder was 74. And of these committals the 
results were as follows. 



Discharged, no evidence - 8 

Acquitted on trial - -44 

Convicted - - - -. - - 16 

Insane persons - - - . - 6 

74 



Such is the record of crime for 1851, and in this is com- 
prehended every form and species of murder. Not only 
deliberate murder, but poisoning and infanticide and parri- 
cide. All these forms, which are classed under different heads 
in other countries, are included in these figures. And this 
number is above the average of the last ten years. The 
total of committals during that period was 718, and of these 
the number of convictions was 179, giving for the average 
each year, — 

Committals for Murder, less than - 7*2 
Convictions - - - - - - 18 

Such is the record of the crime of murder in all its varie- 
ties in England and Wales. The number of actual convic- 
tions — of murders proved, is surprisingly small, and although 
they are perhaps the truest test of the actual amount of 
crimes, yet, as is usual on criminal statistics, I shall assume 
the committals here as elsewhere, as the amount to be 
considered. 

Taking, then, the average of committals as the amount 
of crime, namely 72, and taking the population of England 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



XVll 



and Wales, according to the census of 1851, at 17,927,609, 
the proportion of murders is, four to every million of the 
population. 

The transition from Protestant England, to Roman Ca- 
tholic Ireland, is intensely painful, as exhibiting the cha- 
racter of a population, under the same sovereign, the same 
laws, the same institutions, and governed by the same per- 
sons. It is possible, as some suggest, that Celtic blood or 
race may be a cause of the difference so observable. It is 
possible likewise, that a mistaken sense of past oppression 
may have left some baleful traces in the national character. 
At all events, the results are enough to make good men 
weep, as they read the record of blood, and more than 
enough to prove that the moral restraints, which are 
imposed upon crime by the principles of Romanism, are 
far less efficient than those imposed by the principles of 
Protestantism. 

A return has been laid on the table of the House of Com- 
mons, containing the number of commitals for murder in 
Ireland from July 1836, to April 1839. The total was 645 ; 
being a yearly average of 235, or no less than thirty three 
murders to each million of the population ! 

Since that period, however, there has happily been a vast 
improvement. Large masses of the population have emi- 
grated ; great numbers have become Protestant ; and a re- 
turn has been laid before Parliament in 1851, containing 
the amount of committals for murder, during a period of 
seven years. The total is 914, being a yearly average of 
130. This figure, compared with the last census, gives 
about nineteen murders to each million of the popu- 
lation. 



xviii 



MORAL RESULTS 



The country that comes next in order, is lloman Catho- 
lic Belgium. Being placed in the same parallel of latitude, 
it is subjected to the same climatic influences as England. 
Its civil institutions are characterized by as large an amount 
of liberty, and the grand distinction between them is that 
of Religion. There is no nation in Europe more fitted to 
exhibit the power of those restraints Romanism imposes 
upon crime ; for none is so characterized, by all that is best 
and purest in the piety of the church of Rome. The popu- 
lation of Belgium is essentially pious and religious accord- 
ing to the principles of that church. 

In the last returns laid before the king by the minister 
of justice, and published in 1852,* we find the number of 
accused, that is, the number of committals for murder, in 
each year for a period of ten years. 

Cases prosecuted ----- 537 
Cases unknown 307 

844 

This number contains all cases of assassination, poisoning, 
infanticide, parricide, and generally all the forms, which in 
England are simply classed as murder. They amount to 
the yearly average of 84. And this figure compared with 
4,337,673, the amount of the population at the last census 
in 1846, gives eighteen murders in each million of the 
population. 

In contrasting with this the condition of Roman Catholic 
France as to the same crime of murder, we find our task 

* " Administration de la justice civile et criminelle de la Belgique, 
par M. D. Lentz, Chef de division au Ministere de la justice, Bruxelles, 
1852." 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. xix 

greatly facilitated by the able work of Monsieur Guerry, 
himself a member of the church of Rome. This work, — 
" Statistique morale de la France" has been approved and 
adopted by the Royal Academy of Science in Paris. 

This work on the statistics of crime in France gives the 
following as the average of yearly crime from the returns 
of six years. 



Murder, before the Civil Tribunals - 298 
Assassination - - - - 255 

Infanticide - - - - - -118 

Poisoning 40 

Parricide - - - - - -13 

Murder, &c, before Military tribunals - 217* 



941 

There was thus a total of 941 as the yearly average of 
murders in their several varieties. From this list are exclu- 
ded all cases of manslaughter, where there was no appearance 
of malicious intention to murder ; these amounted on the 
yearly average to 368 more, so that the foregoing gives the 
averages only of those crimes, that are properly described 
as Murder. 

This work however was published in 1833. And it is 
important to know the state of France at present as con- 
cerns this class of crime. This is contained in the " Compte 
general de V administration de la justice criminelle en France, 
1851," and presented, by command, to the Emperor by the 

* The only difficulty in this statement of Monsieur Guenw, is that in 
this last item, being the average of ten years, tried before the Military 
tribunals — the cases of manslaughter were included. In the preceding 
items, all such cases are excluded. It does not, however, much affect 
the yearly average. 



XX 



MORAL RESULTS 



Minister of Justice, and printed by him in 1853. The re- 
cord of committals for that year is as follows. 

Murder, before the Civil tribunals - 242 p. 48 
Assassinations ----- 369 p. 49 

Infanticide - - - - - 182 p. 50 

Poisoning - - - - - -47 p. 51 

Parricide - - - - - - 32 p. 40 

872* 

This gives a total of 872 persons charged with murder 
for the year, exclusive of those tried before the military tri- 
bunals. The omission of these from the returns is not un- 
natural, when it is remembered that it is a military govern- 
ment, and that such a return of military crimes would not 
be either discreet or palatable at present. The number 
may very fairly be reckoned as the same as already given 
from Guerry, as the average of ten years, namely, 217, 
which, added to the 872 before the civil tribunals, makes 
a total of 1089, as the amount of this class of crime in one 
year in France. This figure, compared with the amount 
of the population according to the last census in 1846, 
namely, 35,400,486, gives thirty one murders to each 
million of the population. 

We next turn to the empire of Austria, essentially Roman 
Catholic — an empire that may well be accepted as the most 
suitable illustration of the civilizing powers of the church 
of Rome, as being an empire where that church is the esta- 
blished church, the almost universal church, an empire 

* The number of accused is a little more than the number of crimes 
given in the beginning of the report, as several persons were implicated 
in some of the murders. 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



XXI 



where Protestant principles are barely known, and scarcely 
tolerated — where all the restraints which Romanism im- 
poses upon crime, all her convents and monasteries, all her 
monks and nuns, all her confessionals and penances are es- 
tablished, sanctioned and enforced by the laws of the land. 

The criminal statistics of this empire are carefully com- 
piled. There is established on imperial authority, an " Im- 
perial commission for statistics," and their duty is to collect 
these every year. The Secretary of this commission has 
published last year the results in two volumes, entitled, 
" Die Stastistik des Osterreichischen Kaiserstaates." 

These volumes contain the official or governmental re- 
turns as to the number of murders perpetrated during the 
last twenty years, and they also give the average numbers 
of each quinquennial period, so that there is every facility 
for ascertaining the yearly averages. They are as follows : 

Murders tried before the Civil tribunals - - 770 

Infanticide 124 

Murders tried before the Military tribunals - 431 * 

1325 

Such is the yearly average ! There are thus more mur- 
ders committed — more human lives sacrificed every year 
in the Austrian Empire, in cold, wanton, wilful murder, 
than fall in some of the fiercest and sternest conflicts of 
modern warfare. It may be the result of absolute and 

* The only difficulty is as to this item. The return is not an average, 
but only a return for one year, namely, 1847. The Secretary states, that 
owing to the revolution in 1848, it was impossible to ascertain the precise 
number since then. This number may, therefore, be taken as the ordi- 
nary amount. 

b 5 



XXII 



MORAL RESULTS 



military government, or it may be the fruit of evil laws 
and defective institutions ; but at all events, notwithstand- 
ing all the restraints which Romanism supplies against 
crime, this Roman Catholic empire exhibits an amount of 
this highest class of crime, which, compared with the popu- 
lation at the last census, namely, 36,514,466, is nearly 
thirty six murders to each million of the population ! 

Attention must now be directed to Roman Catholic Ba- 
varia ; next to the Empire of Austria, it holds the highest 
place among the Roman Catholic powers of Germany ; and, 
being a country essentially governed on the principles of 
the church of Rome, and sanctioning by law, and encourag- 
ing by patronage all the institutions characteristic of that 
church, it may justly be regarded as a fitting stage on which 
to test the efficacy of the principles of Romanism in the re- 
pression of crime. 

The official and governmental returns are regularly pub- 
lished, giving the amount of crime of every kind as perpe- 
trated in the kingdom.* The returns of five years are now 
before me, and are as follows, 



These are the total for five years, omitting all cases of 



Simple Murder - 

Assassination 

Murder by Poisoning - 



249 
834 

51 
181 

20 
219 



Murder of children before birth 
„ „ during birth 

„ „ after birth 



1554 



* " Beitrage zur Statistik des Konigreichs Bayern, Von Hermann, 
Munchin, 1853." 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



xxiii 



attempts at murder, and all cases of unintentional homicide. 
They give 311 as the yearly average of this class of crime, 
and this figure, when compared with the amount of the pop- 
ulation, which by the last census in 1849, was, 4,520,751, 
or four millions and a half, gives as a result about sixty 
eight murders to each million of the population ! 

And next we turn to Italy. There are no official or go- 
vernmental returns from Spain and Portugal. A French 
authority states that in Spain the murders and attempts at 
murder, amount on the yearly average to about 250 to each 
million of the population ! But I cannot find that his 
statement has the authority of governmental returns, and 
our present argument confines itself exclusively to them. 

We turn therefore to Italy, and shall proceed in order 
through its several provinces. It is the land of Popes and 
Cardinals, and Prelates and Priests, and Monks and Nuns 
■ — the land of Convents and Monasteries — the land, where 
all the governments are despotic and absolute, and give all 
their influence and power to the church of Rome ; — the land 
therefore of all others, the fittest to exhibit the true charac- 
ter of that church in the influence or potency of her prin- 
ciples in the repression of crime, as being the land essen- 
tially the most adapted for their favorable development. 

The first of the Italian kingdoms is Sardinia, once so 
remarkable for its persecution of the Protestants of its val- 
lies, and now for its progress in free institutions. The re- 
turns of crime are given from the police in Alfieri, and cited 
from himinMittermaier; they embrace a period of seven years, 
all preceding the troubles of the late revolution, and therefore 
unaffected by them. The total number of murders amounts 
to 712, which, divided by seven, gives us a yearly average 



XXIV 



MORAL RESULTS 



of 101 cases of murder. The number of persons stabbed, 
poniarded, pistoled, and otherwise wounded was 713 on the 
yearly average. But the number of actual murders being 
101, when compared with the population, which in 1848 
was 4,916,084, gives about twenty to each million of the 
population. 

The next province of Italy is the two Lombardies, where 
the amount of this class of crime ascends still higher. The 
number of murders discovered, together with those the per- 
petrators of which had altogether escaped, and with the 
addition of the cases of infanticide, amounted in two years 
to 450. The details of these will be found in Mittermaier ; 
and the result is a yearly average of 225, a figure which, 
when compared with the population according to the last 
census, namely 5,047,472, gives about forty-five murders 
to each million of the population ! 

The Grand Ducal states of Tuscany come next in order, 
and the conspicuous position which their rulers have lately 
assumed for this province, in prohibiting under civil penal- 
ties of fine and imprisonment, the perusal of the Holy Scrip- 
tures, and re-enacting the middle-age laws, imposing the 
penalty of banishment or death on a change of religious 
opinion, gives a new and peculiar interest to the state of 
crime within its borders. The returns of all crimes in Tus- 
cany for nine consecutive years, namely, from 1830 to 1838 
will be found in Mittermaier. The following are the 
murders : — 

Murder with robber y - - - - -26 
Premeditated Murder 66 



Voluntary Murder 
Assassination - 



305 
233 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. XXV 

Parricide - - - - - - - 24 

Murder of wives by husbands, and vice versa - 27 

Murder by Poison 22 

Infanticide - ------54 



757 

This number distributed through nine years, gives no 
less than 84 as the yearly average. The amount of the 
population of Tuscany in 1841 was 1,489,000, so that the 
amount of this class of crime, is about fifty six to each 
million of the population ! 

And next we arrive at the Papal States — Rome. It is 
far from easy to obtain accurate and precise information 
upon any subject in these States of the Church. Happily 
however, as concerns our present enquiry, the British go- 
vernment deputed Dr. Bowring to proceed to Rome, and 
to procure for them statistical information respecting cen- 
tral Italy, for commercial purposes. The report was laid 
by Lord Palmerston on the table of the House of Commons, 
and has been printed by order of Parliament. In that re- 
port is a return of the number of persons imprisoned for 
murder in the Papal states, at the period of Dr. Bowring' s 
visit. The amount was 580. These were persons, some 
incarcerated after trial, undergoing their sentences, and 
some awaiting their trial. And of these it may be proba- 
bly said, that one third were perpetrated during the year ; 
this would give for the Roman States 193 as the murders 
of one year, and to these are to be added the murders in 
the provinces of Macerata and Ferrara, as detailed in the 
returns, namely 146. This gives us the proximate number 
339. This is the figure with which we are to deal, and 
comparing this figure with the population of the Papal states, 



MORAL RESULTS 



which, in 1846, was 2,908,115, the result gives above one 
hundred and thirteen to each million of the population ! 

The island of Sicily comes next in review, and presents 
a state of crime not much better than the preceding. In 
the returns for murder of various kinds, for the year 1833, 
they amount to 176, and from the returns of several years 
it is stated by Mittermaier that they ranged from 1 60 as the 
lowest, to 188 as the highest, that is, that 174 may be taken 
as the yearly average. The population in the year 1834 
was 1,936,033, or less than two millions, so that the yearly 
average of murders is about ninety to each million of the 
population ! 

But the last and darkest picture of crime is Naples. A 
veil might well be drawn over so terrible and revolting a 
record, but the revelations of Mr. Gladstone respecting 
that country have prepared the mind of England for the 
truth. The following is the criminal calendar of one year, 
as given in Mittermaier, and that too in 1832, long before 
the scenes of the last revolution. 



Parricide - ---- 5 

Murder of wives by husbands, and vice versa - 37 
Infanticide* - - - - - - -15 

Murder of relations ------ 21 

Poisoning -------- 5 

Premeditate Murder - - - - - - 134 

Intentional homicide ------ 663 

Assassination - - 89 

Murder combined with robbery 75 

„ „ „ adultery - - - 1 



1045 

* The actual number of cases of infanticide was 84. The preceding 
figure gives the convictions, but 84 children were murdered ! 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM 



xxvii 



Such seems the ordinary list of crime in Naples. The 
amount of population exclusive of Sicily is about 6,066,900 ; 
at that period it was little more than five millions, But, 
taking it at the highest figure, it will give about one hun- 
dred and seventy-four murders to each million of the 
population ! 

The yearly average of murders in all Italy — in that land 
where the church of Rome is supreme, and without a rival, 
is 1968, so that every year there are left murdered in cold 
blood more men and women and children than often fall 
in our most blood-stained battle-fields. And this in the land 
of convents and nunneries and confessionals — in the land 
where, of all else on the wide surface of God's creation, we 
might expect the full and happy development of all the 
restraints which the church of Rome imposes upon crime — 
in the land where Priests and Monks and Nuns exceed an 
hundred and twenty thousand ! Mr Whiteside informs 
us that at Assissi there are 12 convents ; at Foligno, 12 for 
monks, and eight for nuns ; at Spoletto, 22 ; at Terni, 5 ; 
at Narni, 7 for Monks, and 5 for nuns. It appears too 
that at Perugia, there are 34, while in Rome there are 64 
for monks, and fifty for nuns ! And yet it is in this very 
district that the murders amount to one hundred and thir- 
teen to the million of the population ! while, in Naples and 
Sicily there are, or rather were, a few years ago, 16,455 
Monks, and 13,000 nuns, the largest number in any coun- 
try in the world, and there there is also the largest propor- 
tion of crime to be found in any one country on the whole 
surface of God's creation ! 

The following are the results in all the several Roman 
Catholic countries, as contrasted with Protestant England. 



xxviii 



MORAL RESULTS 



Roman Catholic Ireland - 19 to the million. 



11 11 


Belgium 


- 18 


55 


„ 


11 11 


France 


- 31 


„ 


11 


11 11 


Austria 


- 36 


11 


11 


11 S» 


Bavaria 


* 68 


11 


11 


M 


Sardinia 


- 20 


11 


11 


9» _ ?i 


Lombardy - 


- 45 


55 


11 


»» 11 


Tuscany 


- 56 


»S 


11 


The Papal States 


- 113 


Si 


11 


Roman Catholic Sicily 


- 90 


55 


11 


11 55 


Naples 


- 174 


55 


11 


Protestant 


England 


4 


11 





I ask — are not these figures eloquent ? 

One thing at least is certain, as derived from these figures, 
official and governmental as they are, namely, that convents 
and nunneries, and confessionals, and all such institutions 
of Romanism have failed, in those countries, where they 
have been tried under the circumstances most favourable 
for their development — have failed wretchedly and signally. 
And the argument, that we ought to introduce into this 
country the institutions of Romanism even in a modified 
form, as more efficient in repressing crime, than the prin- 
ciples and motives of Protestant Christianity, is not only 
answered, but annihilated. 

It may however be argued that these disastrous and hor- 
rifying results in Roman Catholic countries are not to be 
attributed to the religion of Rome, but to bad laws, evil 
institutions, and unwise legislation. This is just and true 
in a measure. The free and noble institutions of Protes- 
tant England — her wise and equitable laws — her civil 
freedom and her religious liberty — pervaded as they are by 
the moral principles of her Protestant Christianity, all tend 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



XXIX 



to the suppression of crime, while in Roman Catholic lands, 
the despotism of absolute power — the military government 
that with gauntleted hand dashes the printing-press in 
pieces, or holds it in chains — the sacerdotal system, which 
forges the Procrustean bed of a state religion, on which every 
man must lie, whatever be his stature, and have his head 
and feet chopped to fit it — all these combine to engender 
crime ; and while the people are left without justice against 
oppression — without redress in their wrongs, it is not won- 
derful that they take redress into their own hands, and in 
a spirit of wild justice vindicate their own wrongs, and 
avenge themselves. But still it may well be asked, and it 
is a cogent and awkward question, how it comes to pass 
that pure and eternal justice has thus taken wing and fled 
from every Roman Catholic country in Europe, as from some 
ungenial clime, and has made her home in Protestant Eng- 
land as in her native place. 

And, although laws and governments may explain in 
some degree the causes of so marked a difference in crimi- 
nality, yet it is impossible to conceal or stifle the conviction 
that there may be some element of difference between Pro- 
testantism and Romanism, which contains the secret. The 
practice of priestly absolution, as rife among the members 
of the church of Rome — the practice of commuting penance 
or repentance for money, so general among them — the be- 
lief of an amount of merit in attending masses in privileged 
places, as a set-off against the demerit of sins — and above 
all, the belief that masses can relieve the souls suffering for 
their sins in Purgatory, combined with the practice of buy- 
ing and selling those masses, all tend to diminish the reli- 
gious fear and awe associated with crime against God. The 



XXX 



MORAL RESULTS 



prevalence of such belief and such practices in any land 
tends necessarily to the multiplication of crime ; and while 
this accounts for the higher criminality of the Roman Ca- 
tholic countries of Europe, their total exclusion from Pro- 
testant England, is one great element towards the diminu- 
tion of such crimes within her borders. 

But eternal and sacred truth demands a further statement. 
There is an element of difference between the two religions 
of immense importance. It is this, — 

Both Romanism and Protestantism are agreed as to the 
deep, black, awful sinfulness of the murderer. They are in 
accord as far as the murderer himself is concerned, as to 
his conscience, as to his soul, as to his eternal destinies if 
he die unrepentant. They may differ, indeed, as to the 
mode of getting rid of his guilt, but they are in accord so 
far as the murderer himself is concerned, while they are as 
wide as the poles respecting the murdered victim. 

This difference is wide and important in its results. That 
which gives a double-dyed guilt and shivering horror to 
the crime of murder in the eyes of a Protestant is, that it 
is suddenly sending an immortal being unbidden before his 
final Judge; — unprepared, and perhaps unthinking, before 
the last judgment, then and there, " with all his imperfec- 
tions on his head," to receive his eternal destinies. There 
is no change in the grave ; as he lived and died, so he rises 
and is judged. It is this that gives such unspeakable awe 
to this crime, and makes a good man shudder at its very 
name. But in the church of Rome all this feeling, so 
cogent in restraining this crime, is annihilated. In her it 
is held, that the moral condition of a man may undergo a 
change in the grave — that he may be purified and bettered 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



XXXI 



in his after state by purgatorian sufferings ; and that after 
a time he may even stand spotless and blameless before 
his Judge. In connection with this doctrine it is held that 
the friends of the dead can relieve his sufferings, and 
secure his release, by getting Masses said for his soul. 
And these Masses are to be bought and sold as any other 
merchandise in the market. The result is, that the mur- 
derer looks on his bleeding victim, as he lies stark and 
ghastly, and he comforts himself with the thought that the 
surviving friends of the victim have it in their power to 
save him, by having Masses offered for his soul ; and 
that if they indeed fail — if they withhold the money from 
the priest, he himself has but to pay a trifling sum for 
the required number of Masses ; and he thus relieves 
himself — he disburdens his conscience of all that which 
gives the highest awe — the darkest and dreariest colour to 
this crime in the eyes of a Protestant Christian. 

I have myself personally witnessed this traffic. There are 
certain altars, called " privileged altars," in the churches of 
Rome ; the special privilege of which is, that a single Mass 
said at such altar is adequate to release from purgatorian 
suffering the soul for which it is offered. I witnessed 
personally the sale of this privileged mass to a large num- 
ber of persons in the church or Basilica of Santa Croce di 
Gerusalemme in Rome. Each person stated the name of 
the friend supposed to be suffering in purgatory — paid four 
pauls, about one shilling and eight-pence, and received an 
acknowledgment in writing ! I witnessed again the same 
process at the feast of the Assumption at Varallo in 1851. 
I had visited the Sacro Monte there to witness the pilgrim- 



xxxii 



MORAL RESULTS 



ages to the shrine of the Virgin. The high altar of the 
principal church possesses the privilege already alluded to. 
And near it was a bureau or office ; with a notice publicly 
setting forth to the multitude of pilgrims, that it was there 
they received the payments for the privileged Masses, for 
the relief of the souls in Purgatory. The pilgrims were 
entering, paying their money, giving the names of their 
departed friends, receiving an acknowledgment, and then 
withdrawing. I entered myself; I stated my wish to release 
the soul of a departed friend. The official bowed courte- 
ously, and opening a large account-book, asked me my 
name. 

I gave him my name. 

He entered it in this account-book, but spelled it, as 
most Italians do with an English name, so that I could not 
myself recognize it. We both smiled, and he apologized 
on account of the difficulty of writing a foreign name. 

I asked him, how much I was to pay for the release of 
my friend. 

He replied, — two francs Milanese and seven cents. 

I gave him a five-franc piece and received the change, 
by which it appeared he retained about one shilling and 
eight-pence. 

He then asked the name of my friend in Purgatory, whose 
soul was to be released. 

I felt that this was the moment for demonstrating the 
absurdity and knavery of this system. I thought that the 
best way of doing this was to give the name of some one 
who was certainly not then in Purgatory. I gave my own 
name ! 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



xxxiii 



He immediately handed me a book — the book of the 
names of all souls to be released by the privileged Mass, 
and which book is deposited on the altar, so as that when 
the priest says the privileged Mass, he may name audibly 
or mentally the names of those to be released. In this 
book there were entered on the same page above twenty 
names already. On handing this book to me he smiled 
courteously, and apologizing for giving me the trouble of 
writing the name, requested that I would myself write it, 
lest he should make any mistake. I wrote my own name 
at full length ! 

He again bowed most courteously, apparently intimating 
that all was completed for the present. But, remembering 
that I saw others get receipts, I asked for one. 

On filling the blanks in the receipt-form, he asked whe- 
ther I would not like a Blessing for my friend's soul, as 
well as the Mass, 

I replied, with many thanks, that as the privileged Mass 
was sure to release his soul from Purgatory, he would not 
want the Blessing. 

He smiled, completed the receipt — signed it — and I 
withdrew. 

Such was the scene in which I personally took part. The 
following is a copy of the receipt : 

" 1851. Sept. 8th. The Sacred Mount. 
" I, the undersigned, agent of the venerable fabric of 
" the Sacred Mount of Varallo, have received from Mr. 
" Hobart Seymour, the charity of one shilling and eight- 
" pence for one Mass to be celebrated at the perpetually 



xxxiv 



MORAL RESULTS 



" privileged daily altar of the most blessed Virgin Mary 
" in Varallo. 

" In witness. Agno Bertoli."* 

When a system like this is openly and publicly taught, 
and believed, and practised, by the priesthood on one hand 
and by the people on the other ; — a system by which either 
murderer or victim may be released from the sufferings of 
another world by a small sum in this — where a system 
like this prevails among the population of any country, it 
ceases to be a matter of surprise that crime should abound 
in all its most dark and terrible features. The wonder 
would be if it should be otherwise. 

But there is another field for enquiry, beside the Criminal 
Calendars. The argument, against which I am contending, 
refers to the domain of vice and immorality, rather than to 
the province of criminal police, and as that argument is, that 
we have sunk to such a depth of depravity in Protestant 
England, that it becomes desirable to introduce the peculiar 
checks, which the convents, and nunneries, and sister- 
hoods, and confessionals, and generally, the institutions of 
the church of Rome, impose upon vice and immorality, so 

* The original is as follows : — 

1851, addi 8 Smbre, dal S. Monte. 
Ho ricevuto io sottoscritto assistente della veneranda Fabrica del sacro 
Monte di Varallo dal Signor Hobart Seymour, Pelemosina di lire, 2 : 7. 
di Mil. per Messe unada celebrarsi alTaltare privilegiato quotidiano per- 
petuo della Beatissima Vergine Maria. 

In fede. Agno Bertoli. 

This form of receipt is printed, and is surmounted by a drawing of the 
high Altar. The term " elemosina,"' is that usually applied to monies 
granted for Masses, for the relief of souls in purgatory. 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



XXXV 



we must now proceed to examine, whether these have indeed 
succeeded so well in Roman Catholic countries, as to in- 
duce us to consent to try the perilous experiment of their 
influence in England. 

In turning to this part of our subject, I would bear in 
mind that there are many circumstances, which tend to 
real and actual immorality, besides the defects of religious 
principle. There are sins that may be said, in a measure, to 
belong to latitude and longitude, to the domain of geogra- 
phy, rather than to the province of churches. The vice of 
excess in spirituous drink, is greatest as you ascend, and 
least as you descend, in the scale of latitude. The nearer 
we approach the poles the more it prevails, and the nearer 
we touch the equator the more it disappears. The vice of 
polygamy with all its attendant evils, seems mainly governed 
by longitude, for the farther we travel to welcome the sun- 
rise in the east the more it prevails, and the more we seek the 
sunset of the far west, the more surely it vanishes away. It 
must not be said, or thought for a moment, that religion 
has not its full influences in restraining both of these odious 
tendencies, but a wise man will see and feel, that in estima- 
ting the comparative morality of a people, it is necessary to 
take into account the influence of climate, the geographical 
position, and the civil institutions of nations. The essen- 
tial morality or immorality of any act, must of course be 
determined exclusively by the word of revelation. But in 
estimating the comparative morality of widely-separated and 
far different peoples, there are other elements that deserve 
consideration in their measure. Religion is the main element, 
but climate, and government, and civil institutions, are items 
of no slight importance. 



xxxvi 



MORAL RESULTS 



There are institutions, or rather customs, in Northern and 
Western Germany, where Protestantism prevails, respecting 
marriage, by no means favorable to purity of morals. And 
there are other and different laws, local in their nature, that 
greatly tend, in Eastern and Southern Germany, which 
is chiefly Roman Catholic, to the injury of marriage, and 
the promotion of immorality. The Poor Law of England, 
has in like manner too often operated unfavorably for the 
morality of the population. And, therefore, in forming an 
estimate of the comparative morality or immorality of dif- 
ferent nations, we are bound to retain in memory that there 
are other elements, besides their respective religions, to be 
taken into consideration. 

It is with a full sense of the weight due to all such con- 
siderations, that I propose now to compare the morality of 
Protestant England, with that of Roman Catholic countries ; 
that so we may learn whether the convents, and nunneries, 
and confessionals, and sisterhoods of Rome, have proved 
such effectual restraints upon vice and immorality, as may 
make us desire to introduce them into England. 

It must not for a moment be supposed, that I charge the 
church of Rome with avowedly countenancing vice or im- 
morality. She does neither the one nor the other. And I 
know of few things I would deprecate more distinctly, than 
being thought to give currency to such an accusation. The 
charge which I do bring against her, is totally different from 
this. It is, that whereas all religions, whether true or false, 
Jewish, Christian, Mahometan, Pagan, and all churches, 
whether Roman, Greek or Protestant, impose certain re- 
straints more or less strong on vice or immorality, and offer 
some principles more or less efficacious to protect against 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



xxxvii 



temptation ; those restraints and those principles, which the 
church of Rome offers, are weaker than those of other 
churches. I do not charge her with countenancing vice, 
hut I do charge her with placing weaker restraints upon 
temptation. I do not accuse her of encouraging immorality, 
but I do accuse her of advancing weaker principles, as a 
protection in the time of temptation. 

The result of this state of things is precisely what might 
be expected. Where there are no special temptations, 
there a Roman Catholic peasantry will be found as moral 
and virtuous, generally speaking, as a Protestant peasantry. 
But wherever temptations exist, as in large towns, crowded 
cities, localities that surround a royal court, places where 
wealth panders to the passions of the rich, and corrupts the 
morals of the poor ; in those regions where wealth and 
power go hand in hand with corruption and vice, there 
where the most seductive temptations exist, — there where 
the principles and restraints of the different religions are 
most tested ; it is universally found that the religion of 
Rome is weaker than our Protestant Christianity. It is 
not that either the one religion or the other sanctions or en- 
courages sin, but it is, that while there are no temptations, 
the two systems exhibit no opposite results ; but where there 
are temptations, there the restraints and principles of Ro- 
manism are incomparably weaker and less efficacious than 
those of Protestant Christianity. 

In carrying out, therefore, our present enquiry, it would 
be a waste of time to examine, even if it were practicable, 
either the bogs of Roman Catholic Ireland, or the highlands 
of Protestant Scotland — the valleys of the Roman Catholic 
Appennines, or the heights of the Protestant Alps. These 

c 



xxxviii 



MORAL RESULTS 



are regions too remote from those most seductive tempta- 
tions, which test the power of religious principles, and in 
such regions the population of all countries are very much 
on an equality. I shall therefore, confine myself to the 
scenes of wealth, and power, and commerce, and manu- 
facture and population — to the dense and crowded towns 
and cities, where temptation unveils all her allurements and 
seductions, and where religious principle is most sorely and 
severely tried. 

I shall commence therefore, with that best evidence we 
possess, namely, the number of illegitimate births, as com- 
pared with the legitimate, in the great capitals of Europe. 
Almost every country has statistical tables of the yearly 
amount of births, distinguishing the legitimate from the 
illegitimate, and the numbers I shall here adduce, shall be 
those of the respective governmental returns. The shade of 
a suspicion cannot attach to these. 

And first, for Protestant London — the city of the whole 
world in which there is the wealthiest aristocracy, and the 
largest amount of gentry — where there is more commerce, 
more wealth, a larger population, and greater temptations 
in number, and amount, and variety, than in any other 
capital in the universe, and where therefore, one might 
fairly expect the largest proportionate amount of immorality. 

The Registrar General is required to lay before Parlia- 
ment and the Sovereign a statement in detail every year 
of the number of births throughout England and Wales ; 
specifying what proportion of such births may have been 
illegitimate. 

The return for 1851, states that the total number of 
births in the London division, with a population of 2,362,236, 
was 78,300, and of these — 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



xxxix 



The legitimate were - 75,097 
And the illegitimate - 3,203 

This shows the illegitimate "births to be about four per 
cent, that is, that in every hundred births there are, omit- 
ting fractions, ninety-six legitimate children and four illegi- 
timate. In other words every twenty-fifth child is illegi- 
timate. 

The return of the Registrar General for the preceding 
year gives a similar state of things. The total number of 
births, omitting the still-born, was 72,612, and of these — 

The legitimate were - - - 69,784 
And the illegitimate - 2,828 

This shews the illegitimate births, omitting fractions, to be 
four per cent, — and this seems the true number for London . 

And next for Roman Catholic Paris. M. Guerry in 
his able work, " Statistique Morale de la France" states 
** The illegitimate births in the city of Paris are to the 
legitimate as one to l.jg We reckon therefore, in Paris, 
one illegitimate birth to a little less than two legitimate 
ones. This proportion, which it is true, some departments 
of the interior increase, leads to the conclusion, that in the 
capital more than one third part of the native population con- 
sists of bastards." This, which was published twenty years 
ago, presents a picture of immorality and vice for which 
one is scarcely prepared. It fixes the illegitimate births 
at more than thirty-five per cent. And now for the present 
day. 

The Prefects of the several Prefectures in France, are 
obliged to register all the births of their respective Prefec- 
tures, distinguishing between the legitimate and the illegi- 
c 2 



xl 



MORAL RESULTS 



timate. These returns, as respects Paris, are published by 
the Bureau des longitudes. 

The returns for 1850, give the total number of births at 
Paris for that year as 29,628, of these — 



This shows the illegitimate to be about thirty-three 
per cent. In other words almost every third child is illegi- 
timate ! 

The returns for 1851 are very similar. They give the 
total number of births at 32,324, of these — 



This gives a result very much the same as that of the 
preceding year. Almost every third child born in Paris is 
illegitimate — a proportion but little better than that which 
prevailed thirty years ago ; so that thirty-three per cent 
may be set down as the number for Paris. 

The city of Brussells, essentially Roman Catholic as it 
is, the capital of the most truly and sincerely religious of 
all the Roman Catholic nations of Europe, comes next in 
order. The returns are made to the government, and are 
published by the Secretary of State.* The returns for the 
year 1850, which are the last published, give the total 
number of births in Brussells at 5,281, and of these — 



The legitimate were 
And the illigetimate 



- 19,921 

- 9,707 



The legitimate were 
And the illegitimate 



- 21,689 

- 10,636 



The legitimate were 
And the illegitimate 



- 3,448 

- 1,833 



* " Population, Mouvement de l'ctat civil, pendant 1'annee 1850, Pub 
lie par le Ministre de lTnterieur. Bruxelles, 1851.' 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



Xli 



This is significant of an amount of vice still greater than 
that of Paris. It is about thirty-five per cent. More 
than one third of the population is illegitimate ! 

And yet even this, sad and melancholy as it is, is better 
than the condition of Roman Catholic Munich — the capi- 
tal of Bavaria. It is the unhappy lot of that city, that, 
although its management is under the influence of the 
priesthood of Rome, that influence has been directed to 
strengthen the priestly power in the State, rather than to 
improve those civil institutions, that throw difficulties in the 
way of marriage. By the returns last published, and which 
contain those for the year 1851,* the total number of births 
in Munich was 3,464. And of these 

The legitimate were - - - 1,762 
And the illegitimate - 1,702 

There is here a picture of vice and immorality for which 
one is scarcely prepared in a city professing itself Christian, 
and exclusively under the influeDce of those institutions of 
the church of Rome, whose influence is supposed to be so 
salutary. The illegitimate births are about forty-eight 
per cent. Nearly one-half of the population is illegitimate ! 

And next, we turn to Roman Catholic Vienna. The 
returns from this city give a painful and distressing picture 
of the gradual deterioration of the moral principle. The 
amount of vice and immorality is steadily increasing. In 
London and even in Paris, they exhibit an improvement ; — 
however slight, there is an improvement upon the past, but 
unhappily it is the reverse at Vienna. The total number of 
births in that city in 1841 was 16,682. Of these— 

* "Beitrage zur Statistick des Koenigreichs Bayern, Von Hermann, 
Munchen, 1854. 



xlii 



MORAL RESULTS 



The legitimate were - 8,941 
And the illegitimate - - - 7,741 

Nearly one-half! And as this was worse than at former 
periods, so year by year the frightful depravity deepens 
and blackens, and seems to threaten the overthrow, as by a 
deluge of vice, of every appearance and pretence of morality. 
In 1849 the number of births was 19,241. And of these — 

The legitimate were - 8,881 
And the illegitimate - - - 10,360 

The number of illegitimate births exceeded the legitimate ! 
This is so revolting and monstrous that it may well be 
deemed fabulous and beyond all credibility in a professedly 
Christian city. And yet there is no clearer evidence of 
any fact under the sun than of this fact. There is 
connected with the Imperial Government of Austria a 
Department, called " Die Direction der Administrativen 
Statistik," in other words, an Imperial Commission for 
collecting and publishing the statistics of the Empire. The 
tables of this Direction have been published with the re- 
marks of the " Ministerial Secritar " in two volumes, at 
Vienna in 1852. I purchased them in that city in 1853. 
These tables extend from the year 1830 to the year 1851. 
And the Government Secretary carefully calculates and 
gives the yearly averages of the first nine years ; he then 
gives the averages of the second nine years' period ; and 
afterwards the average of the remaining three years. His 
returns, comparing the illegitimate with the whole number 
of births in Vienna, are as follows, omitting the fractions — 

The yearly average from 1830 to 1838 forty- pour per cent. 
„ „ „ from 1839 to 1847 forty-eight per cent. 
„ „ „ from 1848 to 1851 fifty-one per cent ! 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



xliii 



Such are the returns in the Imperial offices at Vienna. 
They exhibit a state of society in the Austrian capital 
that seems without parallel in the whole world, except per- 
haps, in some of her own provinces. More than one-half 
of the population are illegitimate ! 

My present object, however, is simply to state on the 
authority of the Governmental returns, the facts as they 
exist — to set forth the moral state of London, Paris, Brus- 
sells, Munich and Vienna, in order to learn whether the 
restraints which the church of Rome imposes upon im- 
morality, — whether the Convents and Nunneries and Con- 
fessionals and other institutions of that church have so 
succeeded in those capitals in lessening or suppressing vice 
and immorality, as to lead to the conviction that they are 
more effective than the restraints of our Protestant and 
English Christianity. 

The following concise summary will enable us to form a 
judgment upon this subject. It refers exclusively to capital 
cities. 

The proportion of illegitimate births is — ■ 

In Roman Catholic Paris thirty-three per cent. 

„ „ Brussells thirty-five „ „ 

„ „ Munich forty-eight „ „ 

„ „ Vienna fifty-one „ „ 

In Protestant London four „ „ 

These figures are astounding. It almost requires an effort 
to believe them. They seem almost invented for the occa- 
sion ; and yet they are all official and Governmental returns, 
as certain and authoritative as such records can possibly be. 

Nor is it to be supposed that this proportion is confined 
to the capital cities of Europe. If the returns from the 



xliv 



MORAL RESULTS 



departments or counties, in which those capitals are situated, 
be examined, — as Middlesex, and the Department of the 
Seine, and Lower Austria, &c, it will be found that results 
somewhat similar are exhibited. The same remark applies 
to the manufacturing cities, and to the naval ports of the 
several nations. If Birmingham be compared with Lyons, 
or Sheffield with Liege, or Plymouth with Trieste, the 
results have the same grand characteristic in favour of the 
moral state of Protestant England. And all tending to 
shew, that however the members of the two religions may 
seem on an equality in the rural districts, where they are 
remote from temptation ; yet in all those localities which 
are the scenes of commerce and manufacture and wealth — 
in all those localities which are the haunts of temptation, 
and possess the elements of seduction, the motives and 
restraints of Protestant Christianity are incomparably more 
effective than those of the church of Rome. 

It would be interesting, as well as instructive, to compare 
the state of a given number of cities in Protestant England 
with a similar number in Roman Catholic countries. I am 
not in possession of the official reports of the Prefects of 
the various cities of France; and I am unwilling to advance 
anything unless on official and Governmental records of 
authority. And therefore I am not in a position to make 
this comparison as between the cities of England and the 
cities of France. I much regret this; but I am in possession 
of the Governmental returns of the cities of Germany, and 
of those of Italy, and shall exhibit the comparison. 

I take the figures for England from " The Report of the 
Registrar General for the year 1847," as it contains all the 
details as to the illegitimate births, more fully than the 



OP THE ROMISH SYSTEM. xlv 

ordinary abstract. And I take the figures for Austria from 
the Governmental returns in "Die Statistik des Osterreichen 
Kaiserstaates," as published by the Ministerial Secretary in 
1852. I omit fractions. 



Protestant England. Roman Catholic Austria. 



Bristol and Clifton 


about 4 per cent. 


Troppau 


about 26 per cent. 


Bradford 


« 8 „ 


55 


Zara 


55 


30 „ „ 


Birmingham 


„ 6 „ 


55 


Innspruck 


55 


22 „ „ 


Brighton 


51 7 ,, 




Laibach 


51 


38 „ „ 


Cheltenham 


•>•> 7 » 




Brunn 


55 


42 

15 15 


Exeter 


•>•> 8 ■>■> 


55 


Lintz 


51 


46 „ „ 


Liverpool 


v 6 „ 


15 


Prague 


55 


47 „ „ 


Manchester and Salford 


v> 7 „ 


15 


Lemberg 


55 


47 „ „ 


Plymouth 


»» 5 51 




Klagenfort 




56 „ „ 


Portsea 


„ 5 „ 


55 


Gratz 




65 „ „ 




63 








419 



The foregoing series represent fairly the various classes 
of cities in England, and those of Austria represent the 
most populous in that empire. The contrast between them 
as to the amount of illegitimate births is sufficiently strik- 
ing. The average in England is little more than six per cent : 
that is, in one hundred births, there are nearly ninety-four 
legitimate children, and only a little more than six illegiti- 
mate, while the average in the cities of Austria is about 
forty-two per cent., that is, in each hundred births, there 
are fifty -eight legitimate and forty-two illegitimate children! 
On the average of the last three years, Vienna, Gratz and 
Klagenfort have obtained the extraordinary distinction, that 
the illegitimate births absolutely exceed the number of the 
legitimate ! The illegitimate are — 

In Vienna - - - - 51 per cent. 

In Klagenfort - - - 56 „ „ 

In Gratz - - - - 65 „ „ 
c 5 



xlvi 



MORAL RESULTS 



This is probably without parallel in the world. And yet 
in all those cities the church of Rome has her most ample 
development. 

The cities of Italy do not present on the surface so strik- 
ing a contrast, but one of great importance to our present 
enquiry. I take the figures from Mittermaier's collection 
of Italian statistics, having been collected by him from the 
governmental tables; and also from the work on the statistics 
of the Austrian empire, so often cited already, and which of 
course has also the statistics of Lombardy. 

It is impossible, from the very nature of Italian life, to 
obtain anything like an accurate estimate of the illegitimate 
births. This arises from the fact observed by all travellers 
acquainted with that country, that the greatest amount of 
immorality prevails among the married women — that it is 
at least very difficult among the unmarried ; and the reason 
is this : there is a feeling very general among the Italians, 
that young girls, arriving at a marriageable age, are unable 
to preserve their own purity, and will probably fall unless 
watched and guarded with the greatest vigilance. It is the 
vice of Italian life to have low and dishonouring opinions 
of women, as if she was frail — intensely frail — so frail, that 
the opportunity for sinning is too often regarded as evidence 
enough of having sinned ; guilt is supposed, and honour 
lost, in every case where risk of either was regarded as pos- 
sible ; so that it is thought that marriage, or a convent, or 
the strictest watchfulness, is the only real protection for a 
maiden. Her own moral and religious principle seems never 
thought of ! This watchfulness continues till marriage, 
and the society of young men is excluded till some one 
is selected for marriage ; and thus a dragon-like vigilance 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



xlvii 



over the unmarried, prevents the possibility of illegitimate 
births ; while the state of married life is too often such a 
tissue of intrigue, that however illegitimate the births are 
known to be, they must from the simple fact of the mother's 
marriage, be registered as legitimate.* 

And yet it is this very phase of Italian life, that places 
in its* strongest relief the real extent of immorality. In the 
rural districts, in the village homes, in the lonely vallies, 
and remote districts, the simple peasantry are as pure and 
virtuous as any in Europe. They are removed far away 
from the haunts of temptation. But in the cities and 
towns of Italy, where temptation exists, and where vigilance 
is necessarily relaxed, we find the results the same as in 
other Roman Catholic countries. I shall here set down the 
five capital cities of Italy, and contrast them with five cities 
of England in reference to the number of illegitimate births. 
I omit fractions. 

Protestant England. Roman Catholic Italy. 

Liverpool 6 per cent. Turin 20 per cent. 

Bristol and Clifton 4 „ „ Milan 35 „ „ 

Plymouth 5 „ „ Venice 17 ,. 

Brighton 7 „ „ Florence 20 „ „ 

Manchester 7 „ „ Naples 16 „ 

29 108 

This is a high figure, considering the peculiarities of Ita- 

* It is stated, that a prodigious number of illegitimate births are pre- 
vented by the Priests, who learn the state of the 3 T oung women in the 
Confessional, and then use their influence to effect a marriage before the 
birth. It is said, that the females of Italy are more open and candid in 
confession, than any other women in the world ; and certainly it would be 
well, if the Priests never made a worse use of their information than to 
effect a marriage. Alas ! the morals of Italian society tell a different tale. 



xlviii 



MORAL RESULTS 



lian life, by reason of which, notwithstanding the enor- 
mous immorality that prevails, there must always be compa- 
ratively a small amount of births legally illegitimate. The 
English cities present an average of six per cent, and the 
Italians an average of twenty-one per cent. These figures 
shew that the convents and nunneries and confessionals 
and sisterhoods, and all the other appliances of Rome for 
the restraint of vice, have so far proved unsuccessful, as that 
they offer to us no inducement to encourage them in 
England. 

But I have said nothing of Rome — the city of the church I 
I have not numbered it among others, because I have been 
unable to procure any governmental or authoritative account 
of its illegitimate births, and I am unwilling on so grave 
a question, to state anything unless on the most certain 
authority. Perhaps it could scarcely be expected, that an 
ecclesiastical city with a Pope, many Cardinals, 29 Bishops, 
1,280 Priests, 2,092 Monks, 1,698 Nuns, and 537 eccle- 
siastical pupils in the year 1852, as appears in the census 
of that year, should publish a record of illegitimate births. 
At least I have failed to procure it, but at the same time 
we might expect that they might supply us with some record 
of their virtues, their piety, and their charities. To this 
they certainly have responded. They point to the Found- 
ling Establishments, and with a natural pride repeat the 
number of helpless little foundling children, saved, fed, 
clothed, and educated by the monks and nuns of Rome. 
In the exhibition of such charity, they forget that it is also 
an exhibition of the vices of their city. 

In the Italian statistics collected by Mittermaier, we have 
the number of foundling children received into il S. Spirito 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



xlix 



il conservatories and other establishments for foundlings. 
He gives the numbers received during a series of ten years. 
The total was 31,689. And this vast multitude is main- 
tained by the endowments of these establishments, and with 
the attendance of monks and nuns. This total, distributed 
through the ten years, gives a yearly average of 3,160 
foundlings exposed in the city of Rome ! 

But, in order to form a just estimate of the wonderful 
enormity of this, it is necessary to bear in mind that the 
average population of Rome, — apart from the monks and 
nuns, the Bishops and Priests, and other ecclesiastics who 
are to be assumed to be a non-productive population, and 
who in many thousands are ever coming and going from and 
to every part of Italy — is about 130,000 souls. The actual 
population is sometimes considerably more, and sometimes 
far less. In 1800, it was 153,004, and in 1813, it was 
only 117,882. And in 1836 it rose again to 153,678. In 
this last year, the births were 2,258 boys, and 2,115 girls, 
being a total of 4,373 births, as appears by Bowring's Re- 
port, as laid on the table in the House of Commons. 

The result therefore is, that while the total number of 
births is 4,373, the total number of foundlings is 3,160 ! 
This may argue unexampled benevolence on the part of 
monks and nuns, in providing for so many, but it also ar- 
gues either a monstrous amount of illegitimate births, or at 
least an unparalleled number of cruel and unnatural mothers 
that could thus expose their newborn offspring. 

They have a profane jest at Rome against the English, 
and other strangers, who cannot admire too much the loving 
and motherly care exhibited by the nuns towards these 
little outcasts. They say, that the English and such stran- 



I 



MORAL RESULTS 



gers are like Pharoah's daughter, who, in her simplicity often 
admired the loving and motherly care exhibited by his nurse 
to the infant Moses ! 

But what, it may be asked, becomes of all these little 
ones — especially the foundling girls in after life ? We read 
that in one year there were forty children, out of the 3,160, 
reclaimed by their parents. It is stated in Bowring's 
Report, on the authority of Morichini, that 73 per cent of 
these foundlings die in these establishments ! This certainly 
disposes of a large amount of these helpless little ones, but 
still it may be asked, what becomes of the multitude that 
remains in after-life ? This enquiry can only be answered 
by authority. I could not myself attempt it ; I shall there- 
fore give it from the evidence of the Rev. Francis S. 
Mahoney, a Roman Catholic priest who resided twenty 
years at Rome, and whose evidence was given before the 
select committee of the British House of Commons, on the 
Mortmain acts. His evidence will be found appended 
to the Report of the Committee, as printed by order of the 
House in 1851. 

He was questioned as to the endowments existing at 
Rome, for the purpose of giving small marriage-portions to 
young girls, to enable them to marry. He says, page 407. 

" In Rome, that form of charity appeared to be the one 
recommended to dying sinners, sensualists and persons who 
had led a disreputable life ; and a great means of repairing 
the evil they had done during life, in the seduction of young 
girls, was to endow on their death-beds, portions for maid- 
ens, to enable them to get honestly married. There was 
no doubt a pious and benevolent notion presiding over this ; 
but on enquiring into the practical working of the system, 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



li 



I found it to be anything but satisfactory. Most of these 
marriages, as far as my enquiry went among the poorer 
classes of the people, who were principally benefited by the 
endowments, rarely turned out anything praiseworthy or 
desirable. The selection of the husband was rarely left 
either to the maiden, or to the family, or to the parents of 
the maiden. The patronage of these portions was vested 
in the most incongruous way, either in convents, or confra- 
ternities of laymen, in their corporate capacity, or in the 
Spanish Ambassador [for maidens of Spanish birth.] In- 
stead of being a charity, the prevalence of these portions 
was a regular nuisance in the social system, and to the 
community generally. First, because a maiden, who could 
not claim the patronage through the tortuous ways in 
which that favouritism was to be obtained, had no chance at 
all, and she was laid on the shelf ; while an intriguing and 
forward person, and every way undeserving, obtained through 
various objectionable tricks, the preference either of those 
confraternities, or of those convents, or those parties, and 
they appeared of course in the market as rivals of those, 
who were only virtuous and deserving parties. But there 
were other evils still more revolting, which were these ; 
The parties having the patronage of the portions, making a 
very nefarious use of the influence it gave them over the minds 
of the candidates for matrimony ; the consequences being noto- 
riously remarked among the lower orders, and anything but 
satisfactory to lovers of decency." 

A strange account this, of the convents and confraterni- 
ties ; — that Monks of convents, and Friars of confraternities 
should make this revolting use of their patronage ! 

He adds a little further — 



Ill 



MORAL RESULTS 



" The idea of preventing a girl going into a nunnery is 
considered shameful. Therefore it is in vain to say that the 
endowment is to favour marriage, because it would be 
scouted as never being intended to operate against entrance 
into a nunnery ; and in point of fact most of the Roman 
nunneries do receive their recruits through the medium of 
those endowments intended for matrimony; because all those 
girls who choose nunneries, are entitled to dower in prefer- 
ence to those who merely ask it to marry ! " 

In such a state of things, where the Monks of the convents 
and the Friars of the confraternities make such a revolting 
use of their patronage, and then place the girls in nunneries, 
there can be no surprise that while the births are 4,373, 
the foundlings are 3,160 a year. 

All this process of argument, however, is open in some 
measure to the objection, that it is scarcely fair to compare 
England with such remote and differently-circumstanced 
countries as Austria or Italy ; and the truest and fairest 
mode of testing the efficacy of Romanism on one hand, and 
of Protestantism on the other, in restraining vice and im- 
morality, would be by comparing two bordering countries — 
two countries professing the different religions — and so cir- 
cumstanced as to be the same in climate and in race. Eng- 
land and Italy are too widely different in everything to be 
fitly compared, and therefore the question should be tested, 
on such neighbouring countries as Austria and Prussia ; as 
having the same climate and the same race, and even speak- 
ing the same language ; the former being Romanist and the 
latter Protestant. 

This objection is entitled to considerable weight, and 
the suggestion that the question should be tested by 



OP THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



liil 



the moral conditions of Austria and Prussia, is fair and 
reasonable. 

The yearly average of illegitimate births in RoxMan Ca- 
tholic Vienna, as already seen, is 51 per cent. 

The yearly average of illegitimate births in Protestant 
Berlin, is 18 per cent. 

This is a difference sufficiently marked to decide the 
question, at least so far as the respective capitals are con- 
cerned. 

But it may be brought to a fuller and larger test by com- 
paring, not* cities selected here and there from the two 
countries, but the ten largest and most populous cities of 
both. The results are as follows ; omitting fractions. 

In Roman Catholic Austria. In Protestant Prussia. 



Vienna 


51 per cent. 


Berlin 


18 per cent. 


Prague 


47 „ 




Breslau 


26 „ „ 


Linz 


46 „ 




Cologne 


10 „ „ 


Milan 


32 „ 




Kcenigsburg 


28 „ „ 


Klagenfort 


56 „ 




Dantzic 


20 „ „ 


Gratz 


65 „ 




Magdeburg 


11 „ „ 


Lembach 


47 „ 


?? 


Aix la Chapelle 


4 „ „ 


Lai bach 


38 „ 




Stettin 


13 „ „ 


Zara 


30 „ 


11 


Posen 


16 „ „ 


Brun 


42 „ 


ii 


Potsdam 


12 „ „ 




454 






158 



If then the question before us be, as to the efficacy of 
the restraints of Romanism on one hand, or of those of Pro- 
testantism on the other, in restraining immorality and vice, 
and if this question is to be decided by a comparison of 
Roman Catholic Austria, with Protestant Prussia ; — two 
countries inhabited by the same race, and speaking the same 
language, and situated in adjoining districts, the decision 



liv 



MORAL RESULTS 



must be governed by the fact, that taking the ten most po- 
pulous cities of Austria, and the ten most populous cities 
of Prussia,* 

The result in Roman Catholic Austria is forty-five per cent. 
And in Protestant Prussia sixteen • „ „ 

These results must be left to speak for themselves. 

But this process of illustration may be carried further. 
It is often asserted that the Protestant countries, as Nor- 
way, Sweden, Saxony, Hanover, Wurtemburg, are equally 
demoralized, if not actually worse, than the Roman Catho- 
lic countries. I have not one word to offer in defence or 
extenuation of them. All I have to say is, that if in these 
there be indeed a depth of immorality, there is in the 
Roman Catholic countries a depth that is lower still. I 
boldly say, that if any man name the worst of all the Pro- 
testant countries, I care not which, I will name a Roman 
Catholic country that is still worse. 

Let Protestant Norway be named ; its population in 1835 
was 1,194,610; and the proportion of illegitimate births 
was, at the last return, from seven to eight per cent. Let 
Roman Catholic Styria, a province with a similar amount 
of population, 1,006,971, be set against this. The ille- 
gitimate births are twenty-four per cent ! 

Let Sweden be examined, with its Protestant population 
of 2,983,144, in 1835. Its illegitimate births were about 
seven per cent. And then let Upper and Lower Austria 
be set beside it, with a Roman Catholic population of nearly 

* The figures respecting Prussia, are taken from the returns, published 
by order of the Government in Berlin only two years ago. " Die Tabel- 
len, &c." are in the library of the British Museum. 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM . lv 

the same amount, 2,244,3G3. Its illegitimate births are 
twenty-five per cent ! 

If Saxony, with its Protestant population, exhibits so 
frightful a spectacle, as that its illegitimate births are four- 
teen per cent, then let Carinthia with its Roman Catholic 
population be set against it ; its illegitimate births are about 
thirty-five per cent ! 

If in Denmark, with its Protestant population, the ille- 
gitimate births are less than ten per cent, there is the Pro- 
vince of Saltzberg with its Roman Catholic population, 
where the illegitimate births are above twenty-two per cent. 

If Hanover be referred to, and among its Protestant 
population, the illegitimate births are ten per cent, then let 
the Province around Trieste with its Roman Catholic popu- 
lation, be remembered ; its illegitimate births are above 
twenty-three per cent! 

And finally, let Wurtemberg and Bavaria be compared. 
They are two kingdoms lying alongside each other, with 
this only difference, that in the former the Protestants are 
two-thirds and the Roman Catholics one-third of the popu- 
lation ; while in the latter the Roman Catholics are three - 
fourths, while the Protestants are only one-fourth of the 
population. The result is, that in the former, where the 
Protestants are the more numerous, the illegitimate births 
are about twelve per cent. The illegitimate were 8,859, and 
the legitimate 66,579; while in the latter, where the Roman 
Catholics form the large majority, the illegitimate births 
are twenty -four per cent, that is, the illegitimate were 30,729, 
and the legitimate 118,456. 

In short, name any Protestant country or any Protestant 
city in Europe, and let its depth of vice and immorality be 



Ivi MORAL RESULTS 

measured and named, and I will name a Roman Catholic 
country or city whose depths of vice and immorality are 
lower still. 

And yet there is an important element to be considered 
in all calculations as to the amount of illegitimacy in the 
Protestant districts of Germany. 

The returns as to the number of illegitimate births in 
Prussia and in the lesser Protestant states, must be received 
with a consideration. This consideration goes to distin- 
guishing between the nominal and the actual amount. It 
is this : — In Germany, as in Scotland, the Protestant popu- 
lation are Presbyterian, and have cast aside as useless much 
that was formerly associated in their minds, with the evils 
of episcopal courts. Accordingly, both in Germany and in 
Scotland, it was held that marriage was purely a civil and 
not a religious contract. This public feeling became law 
in Scotland. A marriage-contract, or acknowledgment of 
marriage in the presence of witnesses, was held as a valid 
marriage in law, and the offspring legitimate. But in 
Germany there was a difference. The feeling of many of 
the people was, and is, that when the parties are formally, 
and in the presence of witnesses, affianced to each other, 
by a formal act of betrothal, the marriage is sufficiently 
valid ; and accordingly many marriages go no further. 
They remain as they do in Scotland. But the law goes 
further, and demands, very rightly as I think, further for- 
malities, or it will not recognize the marriage as valid. The 
consequence of this state of things is, that many children 
are returned in the police returns to Government as ille- 
gitimate ; — the law declares them to be such, — though their 
parents think them to be legitimate, and they are regarded 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



Ivii 



as such by the popular feeling of the country. This state 
of things gives the appearance of a larger amount of ille- 
gitimate births in the Protestant states than would other- 
wise be the case. This however, never has, and indeed 
never can affect the Eoman Catholic population, who regard 
marriage as a sacrament, to be celebrated only by a priest ; 
but this it is which explains the anomaly, that while the 
Austrian Roman Catholics are incomparably less moral 
than the Prussian population, there is the appearance of 
less immorality among the Prussian Roman Catholics than 
among the Prussian Protestants. It has arisen from those 
peculiar views respecting the forms of betrothal and mar- 
riage, by which many of the lower orders, in the rural dis- 
tricts especially, regard the betrothal, solemnly made in 
the presence of the families of both parties, as tantamount 
to a real marriage. 

And now, to bring this paper to a conclusion. 

It has been stated at the commencement, that the object 
of this paper was not to charge the church of Rome with 
encouraging crime, and above all, the crime of murder ; 
nor yet to accuse her of teaching immorality, or inculcating 
vice ; neither did it enter into the writer's object, to draw 
any contrast between the moral or immoral character of the 
church of Rome on the one hand, and the church of Eng- 
land on the other. The real object was, to shew that 
whatever were the restraints of the church of Rome upon 
crime and immorality, and whatever were the encourage- 
ments to struggle against temptation, they are proved by 
experience to be less effective than those which are pre- 
sented to us in the church of England. And yet more, the 
object was to prove more especially, that convents and nun- 



Iviii 



MORAL RESULTS 



neries and confessionals and sisterhoods and other Romish 
institutions have proved so inefficacious for restraining immo- 
rality and vice in those Roman Catholic countries where they 
have been supported by the Government, and where they 
have been a part of the law of the land, that they afford no 
encouragement to the introduction of them into England. 

Whatever other inferences are deducible from the facts 
and figures already given, I leave to others. 

I have only to repeat what I have said before, that in 
judging of the criminal calendar of a nation, and in form- 
ing an opinion of the morals of a people, there are other 
elements to be taken into consideration, besides the religion 
or church of the country. The political institutions — the 
social laws — the municipal establishments — the physical 
condition — the amount of wealth, commerce and manufac- 
ture — the degree and kind of employments — the climate 
and local position — all these are elements, more or less im- 
portant, as being fraught with more or less temptation, in 
arriving at a true and just conclusion. The religion of a 
people will always be the main element that governs and 
influences their morals ; but at the same time, there is an 
influence also exercised by those other elements which 
ought never to be lost sight of, when we would form a just 
and equitable opinion. 

It is true that it has been the unhappy fate of Roman 
Catholic countries that they have not such valuable and 
efficient laws and institutions as are found in Protestant 
countries. The facts and figures given above are demon- 
strative of this. At least if we are not to attribute the 
crime and immorality that prevails in them, so much 
greater as it is, than in Protestant countries ;— if we are 



OF THE ROMISH SYSTEM. 



lix 



not to attribute it to something most defective in their 
religious system, we must attribute it to their defective 
laws, constitutions, and institutions, And then the 
question — and a most awkward question — arises, as to 
how we can account for the fact, that the laws, constitu- 
tions and institutions of Roman Catholic countries are 
more defective than in Protestant countries ? And espe- 
cially in the Papal States, where the civil institutions and 
the ecclesiastical laws are all alike in the same hands, and 
where the pontiff can change or reform them at his plea- 
sure ? If the evil is to be attributed to defective civil in- 
stitutions, it is an evil that it is always in his power to 
remedy. But it is to be feared that the real seat of the 
evil is in the religious system. 

The question, however, is one too difficult for me to solve 
to the satisfaction of all men. I have no difficulty what- 
ever in my own mind. At all events, it seems certain that 
the greater amount of crime and immorality in Roman 
Catholic countries must be attributed either to the imme- 
diate action of the church of Rome, or to her remote in- 
fluence on the laws and institutions of every land where 
she has been established. 

A deep conviction of this must be my apology for 
the publication of these papers, earnestly desiring, as a 
lover of my country, and as a lover of morality and an 
enemy of crime, to protect the people of England against 
the introduction of the convents and nunneries and confes- 
sionals and sisterhoods of Rome. They might soon lead 
us — I do not say they certainly would — into the same abyss 
of murders and immoralities that pollute other lands under 
the influence of the church of Rome. 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



THE READING OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 

THE CUSTOM OF CANTING A CORPSE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE 

TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURES THE OBJECTION ARISING FROM THEIR 

SUPPOSED DIFFICULTY ANSWER CONNECTED WITH THE LANGUAGE 

OF THE MASS THE REAL OBJECTION IS THEIR BEING TOO PLAINLY 

OPPOSED TO ROME THIS ILLUSTRATED IN SEVERAL PARTICULARS: 

AS, READING THE SCRIPTURES, THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES, THE 
MARRIAGE OF THE CLERGY, HALF-COMMUNION, LATIN PRAYERS, 

WORSHIP OF SAINTS, CONFESSION TO PRIESTS THE OBJECTION 

AS DERIVED FROM TRADITION THE OBJECTION AGAINST PRIVATE 

INTERPRETATION THE DUTY AS WELL AS RIGHT OF READING 

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 

At a distance of some five or six miles from where I resided, 
in a remote parish in the country, was the mansion of a 
gentleman of considerable property. His wife and family 
were much interested in religious things, and he himself 
felt that the progress or improvement of the population, 
was impeded by the effects of Romanism in the peculiar 

B 



2 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



forms, which it assumed in that part of the country. This 
family were very kind and attentive to me, and at their 
request I visited them once every week. They arranged 
that there should be a congregation composed of the family, 
the domestics, the laborers and neighbouring cottagers — 
such as wished to attend — assembled on the appointed even- 
ing, and that I should meet them and pray with them, and 
address them in somewhat the nature of a cottage lecture. 

As I was riding over there one day, I observed at the 
cross-roads that a funeral had just stopped. Being always 
unwilling to hurt the harmless, though superstitious preju- 
dices of the simple peasantry, I at once dismounted, and 
quietly led my horse by the funeral, stopping to exchange 
a few words of courtesy with the parties. My horse was 
nearly white, and as there is a superstitious feeling — connec- 
ted I believe with the vision of Death on the pale horse — as 
to some ill-luck or blight accompanying the presence of any 
one riding or driving a white horse, in a direction differ- 
ent from that taken by a funeral, I adopted this course of 
alighting and saying a few kindly words. The action was ob- 
served, my motive fully appreciated, and most kindly taken. 

It was one of those scenes called — canting the corpse. 
The custom was a very old one, and has long since died out 
of the country, but was still lingering in this remote district. 
I allude to more than twenty-five years ago. 

The custom was this — The funeral stopped on its way to 
the place of burial, at every cross-road, and the coffin was 
placed in the centre of the road. The professed object of 
this was the holy association of ideas connected with a cross, 
but the apparent object seemed to be that it was in such 
places they were sure to meet the largest number of passen- 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



8 



gers. The coffin being placed on the ground, the Priest or 
any acting for him, took a hat in his hand and stood beside 
it, and asked of all the friends of the deceased for their 
"offerings," for the soul of the dead. These "offerings" 
are sums of money collected for the Priest, as payment to 
him to engage him to " offer " such masses as shall relieve 
the soul of the departed in Purgatory. It was usual for the 
Priest himself to collect this money, sometimes on a plate, 
sometimes in his hat. The coffin was placed on the cross- 
roads, and as each person gave his ' f offering," the Priest 
called out the amount in a loud voice. The effect of this 
was exceedingly droll, for as one person gave his sixpence 
the priest pronounced his name and the amount, " Paddy 
Bryan, sixpence, Paddy Bryan sixpence," so continuing, 
like an auctioneer at a sale, till another " offering" was 
made, and then it was " James Riley, one shilling, James 
Riley one shilling," so repeating till another offering was 
given, and then he cried " Billy O'Connor, one penny, 
Billy O'Connor only one penny!" He thus continued, 
varying the tone of his voice so as to natter the pride 
of all who gave largely, and so as to shame the faces of 
those who gave niggardly. The appearance of the whole 
scene reminded one of an auction, which in that country was 
called — a cant, and this gave rise to the designation the 
custom received ; it was called canting the corpse. The 
manner and voice of the Priest, whose object it was to collect 
the largest offerings — the faces of the friends who were 
obliged to shew their regard to the dead by the amount of 
these " offerings " — the angry looks of some whose moderate 
donations were put to shame, by the contemptuous tone of 
the Priest as he named them, — the laughing faces of a 
B 2 



4 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



laughter-loving people, at the way in which so many were 
shamed unwillingly out of their money — all formed a scene 
of the broadest comedy. It was impossible not to be 
amused, even though it took place over a coffin, that con- 
tained the last relics of the dead. A gentle compassion 
for the poor people had been a more suitable feeling. 

I rode on my way. And the more I reflected on this 
scene, the more I felt that it was one of gross extortion, 
practised on the superstitious simplicity of a superstitious 
and simple people — a people who, more than any other 
with which I am acquainted, are nervously and jealously 
sensitive of the opinions of their neighbours. The Priest, 
by the changing tones of his voice, played upon this feel- 
ing, and the people were victimized. I felt this so strongly, 
that when addressing a large assembly of some hundreds 
of Roman Catholics and Protestants in the evening, I nar- 
rated the scene and denounced the custom. I have ever 
rejoiced in knowing that the poor peasantry took encourage- 
ment from my words. They were eagerly circulated and 
as eagerly welcomed through the whole neighbourhood. 
From that moment this custom was discontinued ; in its 
stead a table was placed outside the door of a house where 
there was one dead, and all who entered or passed gave an 
' offering ' or otherwise, as they felt disposed. This was 
infinitely more decent. In that neighbourhood there never 
was witnessed again such a scene as Canting the Corpse. 

While addressing the congregation on this occasion, I 
stated that such scenes could never occur in a Bible-reading 
land, for that they never could be submitted to by a Bible- 
reading people. There was no such place as purgatory ; it 
was never mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. There was no 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



5 



such way of rescuing the souls of the dead as money-offerings, 
there was nothing like it described in the Holy Scriptures. 
And I stated broadly that it was because the Holy Scrip- 
tures did not sanction such things, and because if the 
people read the Holy Scriptures they would not submit to 
such things ; that the Roman Catholic Priests opposed the 
circulation of the Holy Scriptures ; that though they 
seemed to give a variety of other and different reasons, 
the real truth was — they were opposed to the Holy Scrip- 
tures, because the Holy Scriptures were opposed to them. 

It was my custom to remain at the house the night of 
my cottage lecture, and on this occasion I learned, in the 
morning, that a number of Roman Catholics were waiting 
to speak with me; I found eighteen or twenty men col- 
lected in a small apartment, where several members of the 
family with myself met them. They had brought with 
them a spokesman, a young and clever man, who had a 
great reputation in the neighbourhood as a sort of contro- 
versial champion of the Church of Rome. There was 
some desultory conversation on the canting of the corpse, 
and on the cottage lecture of the preceding evening, and I 
soon perceived that our conversation might now be usef Lilly 
turned to the right of the people to read the Holy Scrip- 
tures for themselves — the subject more than all else con- 
troverted in the country at that period. The Protestant 
clergy pressed and exhorted the people to exercise their 
right to read and judge for themselves. The Roman 
Catholic priesthood denied the right of the laity to read 
them, and denounced from their altars all who did so. 

I turned from the young spokesman and addressed one 
of the party whose friends had emigrated to America, and 



6 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



from whom he was daily expecting letters and remittances, 
with a view to his following them, — ' You are now expect- 
ing letters/ I said, ' letters giving account of the far-off 
land — the land beyond the ocean — the land to which they 
have emigrated before you. These letters will inform you 
of all the difficulties you have to undergo, the dangers you 
have to avoid, the duties you have to perform. These let- 
ters, too, will tell you of the success and of the prosperity 
that may be hoped for in that distant land ; and will, per- 
haps, communicate the means by which you will be enabled 
to reach that land in safety, and be again united with your 
friends who have gone before you. Now, let us suppose 
that these letters have arrived — that you have asked for 
them at the post-office — that the post-master refuses to 
give them to you — that in consequence you assert your 
right to letters which are written to you, and intended to 
be read by you — that he refuses still, saying that it was far 
better not to give them to you, for that you were an igno- 
rant and unlearned person — that you might mistake the 
meaning of the letters, and perhaps, might use the money 
they contained to your own destruction — that therefore he 
thought it best to keep the letters and their contents to 
himself, and that you must be content with just as much 
of them as he thought fit to communicate.' I asked the 
man how, in such a case, he would be disposed to act. 

He seemed to me, by the expression of his eye, to see 
the real drift of my question, and answered that he would 
make the post-master give him the letters — that they were 
written to him — that he had a right to them — that they 
were for his information, and that have them he would. 

' But,' I said, ' when he told you that you were ignorant 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



7 



and unlearned, and might mistake or misunderstand them, 
how would you answer him ? ' 

He replied that he would try them at all events — that 
when he got the letters he would read them, and do his 
best to understand them, and get others to help him to un- 
derstand them — but that the letters he would have, and 
would let no man keep them from him. 

8 This,' I then said, ' is precisely the case with the Holy 
Scriptures : they are, as we all know, the Word of God ; 
they are written by His Holy Spirit for our instruction and 
information respecting the land of promise, the heavenly 
land to which we all are travelling. We are here " strangers 
and pilgrims," emigrants looking forward to another world, 
not indeed beyond the ocean, but beyond the grave ; and 
the Holy Scriptures are like your expected letters, written 
to warn us of the temptations and sins which endanger the 
way — to encourage us by the promises and hopes connected 
with faith and holiness — and to tell us of all the blessed- 
ness and holiness and happiness of heaven. Now my 
question is — How ought you to act when any man, under 
any pretence whatever, endeavours to keep these Holy 
Scriptures from you, which were written for you, and to 
which you have as much right as you have to the light of 
the sun or the air of heaven ? ' 

The young spokesman here stopped the other, and ans- 
wered for him, saying, that the Holy Scriptures were a 
hard book, and very difficult to be understood — that they 
puzzled the greatest and most learned divines of all the 
churches — that they were in consequence misunderstood 
and perverted to great evil — that simple and unlearned 
men as thev were, being farmers and peasants and labour- 



8 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



ing men, could not understand them, and might interpret 
them wrongly — that the Holy Scriptures were intended for 
the church and not for the people, and therefore, they 
belonged to the clergy, who were learned and holy men, 
and not to the laity who were ignorant and unlearned. 

And how, I asked him, would you answer the chil- 
dren in school, who said the alphabet was very hard to be 
understood, and the rules of arithmetic very hard to be 
comprehended, and the catechism very hard to be remem- 
bered, and that they all were so hard that it was better to 
lay aside both alphabet and arithmetic and catechism ? 
I added, that I would tell them to read and study them 
more and more, and then to read and study them again 
and again, and that in due time they would find them no 
longer hard, but perfectly easy to be understood. Now, 
how, I asked, would you answer them ? 

He made no reply. Several present said, I had myself 
given the right answer, namely, to read again ; I there- 
fore told them that if they found the Scriptures hard they 
had only to read them again and again, and in due time, 
by God's blessing, they would find them easy enough. 

' And may I ask/ I spoke very gently, as if changing 
the subject, ' in what language does the priest celebrate 
the mass in this Parish ? ' 

He replied, "in Latin of course. In the Church of Rome 
in every part of the world, the canon of the mass is 
said in Latin. In this parish there are some parts of the 
services of the church that are sometimes said in English, 
and sometimes he preaches in Irish, but he always says the 
canon of the mass in Latin. Indeed it is myself that assists 
him at the mass." 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



He said this with some degree of self-importance, as if 
communicating to me some information which 1 seemed 
to require. It was apparent that he did not see my object 
in the question. 

I suppose, then, I said, that you know Latin, and that 
you can understand the Latin of the canon of the mass. 

' No/ was his reply, ' none of us in this parish under- 
stand Latin.' 

■ And yet you attend and assist at the saying the mass, 
you serve at the mass/ 

' Yes, to be sure,' was his answer. ' It is I who always 
serve mass,' that is, he acted in the services of the church 
of Rome, as a clerk does in the Protestant churches. 

I saw that now I was in the best possible position for 
dealing with the objection he had urged against the Holy 
Scriptures being read by the people. He had not perceived 
the object of my questions as to the Latin language. 

I paused for a few moments with the view of drawing 
the more attention to my answer, and when all seemed 
waiting for me, I asked quietly, whether I had rightly and 
clearly understood the objection he had before urged, — that 
as the mass of the people were ignorant, and could not 
understand the Holy Scriptures, so they ought not to read 
them or listen to them, — that the fact of their ignorance, and 
their not understanding them, was adequate reason, for their 
neither reading, nor listening to them. 

He assented to this as the argument he had urged, and 
on which the church of Rome withheld the Holy Scrip- 
tures from the people. They were too unlearned and ig- 
norant to understand them. 

I had my answer prepared. It was one I never knew to 
B 5 



10 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

fail in its effects upon the masses of the people. And I 
therefore delivered it slowly, that the persons present might 
clearly understand it. I said, — If the fact that the Holy 
Scriptures are difficult to be understood, that their language 
is difficult for an ignorant people to understand, — if that 
fact be a good and adequate reason for their neither reading 
them, nor listening to them, then that other fact, — that 
most certain fact, that the language of the mass celebrated 
every day in the chapels is Latin — a language not only 
difficult but impossible to be understood by an ignorant 
people, must be a good and adequate reason for the people 
neither attending nor hearing mass. 

If a thunderbolt had fallen in the midst of us it could 
not have created a greater sensation in its way, than this 
simple answer. The whole party was in commotion, some 
heard it with an expression of face, that seemed searching 
for some way of escape. Some seemed to regard it as a 
piece of uncommon and perplexing ingenuity. The larger 
portion seemed pleased and even delighted with it, as if 
it were a blow that would baffle all attempts at a reply. 

I repeated it slowly, saying, — * Your priests tell you that 
as you cannot understand the Holy Scriptures, so you 
ought not to read them or hear them. If that mode of rea- 
soning be good and valid in reference to the Holy Scrip- 
tures, it is equally good and valid in reference to the sacri- 
fice of the mass. As you cannot understand the language 
of the mass, being in Latin, so you ought not to attend it, 
or hear it. I added that I argued the other way, namely, 
that if they might attend mass, although they did not un- 
derstand its language, so they might as reasonably read 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



II. 



and hear the Holy Scriptures, although perhaps they might 
not understand them as fully as desirable. 

There was no mistaking the general effect of this argu- 
ment on my hearers. They offered no reply, but consulted, 
apparently with a difference of opinion, to see whether they 
could not answer me. 

After some time, I asked, whether they had no answer 
to make, to this mode of putting the question. One of 
them suggested to me, that surely the Holy Scriptures were 
very hard to be understood by poor and ignorant men. 

They certainly are very easy, I replied, to be understood 
by the most poor and most unlearned, in everything that 
is necessary for the salvation of the soul, — in everything 
that concerns you most to know ; and as certainly there 
are also some things too hard for even the learned ; and, 
yet not more hard to you than the language of the mass. 
The priest tells you, that you must attend and hear mass, 
although you cannot understand it. He ought also to tell 
you, that you ought to read, and hear the Holy Scriptures, 
even though you think them hard to be understood. 

They gave up the argument as hopeless ; even their 
spokesman seemed puzzled and was silent. 

I then said, that the real reason for withholding the Holy 
Scriptures, was widely different. They were told that it 
was because they were too hard — too difficult to be under- 
stood. I believed that the real reason is, that they are so 
easy — so plain to be understood, — that the language of 
Holy Scripture when speaking of certain practices in the 
church of Rome, reproving and condemning them, is so 
clear and intelligible, that the people would no longer 
follow those practices, if they read the Holy Scriptures, — 



12 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

that this language is so plain and easy, that a child may 
understand it, and that for this very cause the Church of 
Rome prohibits the reading of the Scriptures. 

They seemed perplexed at this statement, some among 
them had never seen the Scriptures, and therefore knew 
not whether they were difficult or easy. They only knew 
that they were told they ought not to have them, simply 
because being unlearned and ignorant, they could not un- 
derstand them. They had been told this so often, that 
they believed it, and they were greatly surprised to hear 
me say, that the true reason they were forbidden to read 
them, was that they were so clear, plain, and easy to be un- 
derstood. They expressed their surprise in very plain words, 
and as I saw they were disposed on the whole to place con- 
fidence in me, I stated that if they would let me have a 
few moments uninterrupted, I would explain myself fully. 

Their consent was given warmly and readily. Every one 
seemed intent on hearing. 

I said I would do nothing but read a few passages of the 
Holy Scriptures. They could judge for themselves whether 
they were hard or easy. They seemed to me very easy to 
be understood, but they were very hard to be reconciled 
with the church of Rome, — very hard, indeed, to be ex- 
plained according to the practices of the church of Rome. 

I then read the following passages to illustrate the right 
of reading the Scriptures. 

"And these words, which I command thee this day, 
shall be in thine heart : and thou shalt teach them diligently 
unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest 
in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and 
when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



13 



shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall 
be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write 
them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates," — 
Deut. vi. 6—9. 

Thus they were to be taught even to the children. 

" Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests 
the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of 
the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses 
commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years 
in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of 
tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the 
Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou 
shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather 
the people together, men, and women, and children, and 
thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, 
and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God,' and 
observe to do all the words of this law ; and that their 
children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and 
learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as ye live in the 
land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it." — Deut. 
xxxi. 9—13. 

This again desires them to be taught to the men, women, 
and children, even the very youngest, who had known no- 
thing else. 

" Afterwards he read all the words of the law, the bles- 
sings and cursings, according to all that is written in the 
book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses 
commanded which Joshua read not before all the congre- 
gation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and 
the strangers that were conversant among them." — Joshua 
viii. 34, 35. 



14 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



These words shew that all, even the women and the little 
children, were to hear and learn the Word of God. 

"And all the people gathered themselves together as one 
man into the street that was before the water-gate ; and 
they spake unto Ezra the scribe, to bring the book of the 
law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. 
And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congrega- 
tion, both of men and women, and all that could hear with 
understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. 
And he read therein before the street that was before the 
water-gate, from the morning until mid-day, before the 
men and the women, and those that could understand : 
and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book 
of the law." — Nehemiah viii. 1 — 3. 

Here again we have all the people, even the women. 

" And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and 
all the men of Judah, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem 
with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the 
people, both small and great : and he read in their ears all 
the words of the book of the covenant which was found in 
the house of the Lord. And the king stood by a pillar, 
and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the 
Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies 
and his statutes, with all their heart and all their soul, to 
perform the words of this covenant that were written in 
this book : and all the people stood to the covenant." — 2 
Kings xxiii. 2, 3. 

It is evident that all the people both small and great were 
here. 

" The brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by 
night unto Berea : who coming thither went into the syna- 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



15 



gogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in 
Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readi- 
ness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether 
those things were so. Therefore many of them believed ; 
also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, 
not a few.' ? — Acts xvii. 10—12. 

The Bereans are here praised for searching the Scrip- 
tures, and it is clear that this was done by the women as 
well as the men. 

" Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned 
and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast 
learned them ; and that from a child thou hast known the 
holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto 
salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scrip- 
ture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righ- 
teousness : that the man of God may be perfect, throughly 
furnished unto all good works." — 2 Tim. hi. 14 — 17. 

Now here it is evident that the Scriptures were intended 
by God for all, even for little children. And there is no 
reading these passages without feeling that the people, 
men, women, and children, alike have a right to learn, 
and read, and hear the Holy Scriptures. The priesthood 
have no mere right to deprive them of this, than to deprive 
them of the light of the sun or the air of heaven ! And 
I appealed to themselves — whether these Scriptures are 
not plain and easy, and clear enough to be understood by 
them. They are hard and difficult — very hard and difficult 
indeed, to be explained by the church of Rome. But, I 
said, I would give illustrations on another point — the use 
of Images and Pictures. 



16 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



" Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or 
any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that 
is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the 
earth : Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve 
them." — Exodus xx. 4, 5. 

" Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves ; for ye 
saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake 
unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire : lest ye 
corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the 
similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 
the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness 
of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of 
any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any 
fish that is in the waters beneath the earth/' — Deut. iv. 
15—18. 

" Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant 
of the Lord your God, which he made with you, and make 
you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which 
the Lord thy God hath forbidden thee. For the Lord thy 
God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. When 
thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ve 
shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt 
yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of 
any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the Lord thv 
God, to provoke him to anger ; I call heaven and earth to 
witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterlv 
perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to 
possess it ; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but 
shall utterly be destroyed."— Deut. iv. 23—26. 

" Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the hea- 
then, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven ; for the 



HOLY SCRIPTURE, 



17 



heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the 
people are vain : for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, 
the work of the hands of the workmen, with the axe. 
They deck it with silver and with gold ; they fasten it with 
nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are up- 
right as the palm-tree, but speak not : they must needs be 
borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them ; 
for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do 
good." — Jer. x. 2—5. 

These texts seem plain, and easy, and clear. They alto- 
gether forbid, as a heathenish custom, the practice of hav- 
ing images and pictures to bow before, or kneel before, or 
pray before ; and this is precisely the view which Protes- 
tants take of this practice. The church of Rome has mul- 
titudes of these in their houses and in their churches. And 
she finds it difficult, and hard, and impossible to explain 
these Scriptures, which are so plainly against the use of 
images and pictures, so as to reconcile them with her prac- 
tices, and she is therefore afraid that her people may see 
that these Scriptures condemn her practice ; and so she tells 
them that they ought not to read them, because that they 
are too hard to be understood, whereas the real reason 
evidently is that they are too easily understood for her. 

But I will give another instance. It relates to the mar- 
riage of the clergy, which is forbidden in the church of 
Rome, as sacrilege. 

" This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a 
bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be 
blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good 
behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach : Not given to 
wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre ; but patient, not 



18 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



a brawler, not covetous ; One that ruleth well his own 
house, having his children in subjection with all gravity ; 
For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how 
shall he take care of the church of God? " — 1 Tim. iii. 1. 

There can be no mistake as to this, for the wife and chil- 
dren of the Bishop are mentioned. Again — 

" Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, 
not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre ; Hold- 
ing the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let 
these also first be proved ; then let them use the office of a 
deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives 
be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let 
the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their chil- 
dren and their own houses well." — 1 Tim. iii. 8. 

The wives and children of the deacons are here mentioned, 
again : 

" For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest 
set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders 
in every city, as I had appointed thee : If any be blameless, 
the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused 
of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the 
steward of God."— Titus i. 5. 

Now here are texts of which no man can possibly say 
they are hard or difficult in themselves. They certainly 
are hard and difficult to explain in the church of Rome, 
because she forbids the marriage of her clergy, denouncing 
it as a sacrilege, and declaring it to be wantonness. It is 
difficult for her therefore to reconcile these Scriptures with 
her doctrine and practice, but it is apparent to every one, 
that the texts are plain, and clear enough in themselves, 
and it is because they are too plain and clear for her, that 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



19 



she gives them the bad name of being hard and difficult. 
She fears the laity reading them. 

But here is another illustration : it is on the subject of 
refusing the cup of wine to the laity. 

" As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, 
and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, 
eat ; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave 
thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it ; For 
this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for 
many for the remission of sins." — Matt. xxvi. 26 — 28. 

The cup was given by our Lord, and commanded to be 
given and taken by all alike, as well as the bread. Again — 

" As they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and 
brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat : this is my 
body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, 
he gave it to them : and they all drank of it. And he said 
unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which 
is shed for many." — Mark xiv. 22 — 24. 

Again — " He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake 
it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is 
given for you : this do in rememberance of me. Likewise 
also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new tes- 
tament in my blood, which is shed for you." — Luke xxii. 
19, 20. 

Again — " The Lord Jesus took bread : And when he 
had given thanks, he brake it and said, Take, eat ; this is 
my body, which is broken for you ; this do in remembrance 
of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when 
he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in 
my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance 
of me,"— 1 Cor. xi. 23—25. 



20 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Here are Scriptures so plain that " he who runs may 
read." In every one of them the cup of wine is as promi- 
nent as the bread. And when the Roman Catholic priests 
say that these are difficult, it must be that they are difficult 
to reconcile with their system ; they cannot mean that they 
are difficult in themselves, for every one can see that they 
are clear and easy to be understood ; and that the most 
simple-minded and unlearned may comprehend them. The 
suspicion may indeed be entertained, that they are felt to be 
somewhat too clear and easy to suit the church of Rome ; 
which, in direct opposition to the Scriptures, refuses all 
communion in the cup. 

I will give you another instance ; it shall be of the Latin 
prayers, of the sacrifices of the mass. They are always 
read, as already intimated, by the priest in Latin. 

" Even things without life giving sound, whether pipe 
or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how 
shall it be known what is piped or harped ? For if the 
trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself 
to the battle ? So likewise you, except ye utter by the 
tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known 
what is spoken ? for ye shall speak into the air. There 
are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and 
none of them are without signification. Therefore, if I 
know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him 
that speaketh a Barbarian ; and he that speaketh shall be a 
Barbarian unto me." — 1 Cor. xiv. 7 — 11. 

"If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth ; 
but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then ? I will 
pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding 
also : I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



21 



understanding also. Else, when thou shalt bless with the 
spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the un- 
learned, say Amen at thy giving of thanks ? seeing he un- 
derstandeth not what thou sayest. For thou verily givest 
thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank my God, 
I speak with tongues more than ye all. Yet in the 
church I had rather speak five words with my understand- 
ing, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thou- 
sand words in an unknown tongue." — 1 Cor. xiv. 14 — 19. 

" If therefore the whole church be come together into 
one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in 
those that are unlearned or unbelievers, will they not say 
that ye are mad ? But if all prophesy, and there come in 
one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of 
all, he is judged of all ; And thus are the secrets of his 
heart made manifest ; and so, falling down on his face, he 
will worship God, and report that God is in you of a 
truth."—! Cor. xiv. 23—25. 

You yourselves, I said, can say whether these Scriptures 
are hard and difficult to be understood ; they seem to me 
so plain and easy that a child might understand them. 
And when the Priests tell you that they are too hard to be 
understood by you, it really looks as if the true reason was 
that they thought them too plain and easy. 

But we can go further. On the subject of prayers to 
Saints and Angels, the Holy Scriptures seem equally de- 
cisive. 

" As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell 
down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took 
him up, saying, Stand up ; I myself also am a man." — 
Acts x. 25, 26. 



22 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



" When the people saw what Paul had done, they lift up 
their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods 
are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they 
called Barnabas, Jupiter ; and Paul, Mercurius, because he 
was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Jupiter, which 
was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the 
gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. 
Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, 
they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, cry- 
ing out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things' ? We 
also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto 
you, that ye should turn from these vanities, unto the living 
God, which made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all 
things that are therein." — Acts xiv. 11 — 15. 

" And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said 
unto me, See thou do it not : I am thy fellow- servant, and 
of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus ; worship 
God : for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." 
— Rev. xix. 10. 

" I John saw these things, and heard them. And when 
I had heard and seen, 1 fell down to worship before the 
feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then 
said he unto me, See thou do it not : for I am thy fellow- 
servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them 
which keep the sayings of this book : worship God." — 
Rev. xxii. 8, 9. 

" Let no man beguile you of your reward, in a voluntary 
humility and worshipping of angels, "intruding into those 
things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his 
fleshly mind, and not holding the Head." — Col. ii. 18, 19. 
And are these hard and difficult ? Are they not easy 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



23 



and plain in themselves, as shewing that neither Saints nor 
Angels' are to be worshipped ; and that worship is to be 
given to God alone ? But, considering the practice of the 
Church of Rome, w T e cannot be surprised that she forbids 
her members to read such Scriptures, not indeed as is 
pretended, lest you should find them too hard and difficult, 
but because she feels they are inconveniently plain and easy 
for her system. 

And now, once more, and I have done ; I shall read some 
passages on the subject of Confession. The Roman Catho- 
lics confess to the Priests. The Protestants confess to God. 
Let us see what the Holy Scriptures say : — 

"And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray 
thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make Confession 
unto Him ; and tell me now what thou hast done ; hide it 
not from me." — Joshua vii. 19. 

The Confession is to God, and not to the Priest. 

" And Hezekiah spake comfortably unto all the Levites 
that taught the good knowledge of the Lord : and they did 
eat throughout the feast seven days, offering peace-olferings, 
and making Confession to the Lord God of their fathers." 
—2 Chron. xxx, 22. 

"Ezra the Priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye 
have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase 
the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make Confession 
unto the Lord God of your fathers, and do his pleasure." 
—Ezra x. 10, 11. 

" I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity 
have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions 
unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. 
Selah." — Psalm xxxii. 5. 



24 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



" I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my Con- 
fession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keep- 
ing the covenant and mercy to them that love Him, and to 
them that keep His commandments ; we have sinned and 
have committed iniquity." — Dan, ix. 4, 5. 

And now, I asked, are not all these sufficiently plain and 
easy in themselves ? They describe Confession as being 
made to God, as it is among Protestants ; and not to the 
priests, as is the practice of Romanists. And surely if the 
priests assert, that these Scriptures are too hard and diffi- 
cult to be understood ; and that, therefore, you ought not 
to read them ; it may well create the suspicion that they do 
not wish you to read them, lest you should find them too 
plain and easy. 

And now, I said in conclusion, I felt that I could appeal 
to themselves ; I had read to them many passages of Holy 
Scripture on several subjects, and I had observed their feel- 
ings as they heard them. It was impossible not to see, 
that they understood every one of them, and that they ap- 
plied every one of them to the practices and doctrines of 
the church of Rome, and that they felt these Holy Scrip- 
tures to be plainly and clearly against her ; I therefore, 
could appeal to every one of them, whether these Scriptures 
are too hard and difficult to understand, or whether it is not 
that they are so easy and plain, that the priests fear the 
reading of them, and the discovering through them the 
impositions practised upon the people. 

During the whole time I was reading those several 
groups of texts, and applying them without comment to 
certain practices of the church of Rome — letting each 
group speak, as it were, for itself — the attention and inte- 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



25 



rest of every one of the Roman Catholic hearers was ex- 
treme. Their steady gaze — their listening attitude — their 
evident surprise — their mutual glance as they applied the 
several texts — their palpable, and growing, and deepening 
conviction that the Holy Scriptures were opposed to the 
church of Rome, was one of the most striking scenes ever 
witnessed of its kind. The sudden exclamation of surprise 
— the speaking glance — the enquiring looks, all told a 
powerful impression of some kind. I felt that this simple 
grouping of so many texts on each point, and letting them 
speak for themselves without comment on my part, gave 
intense satisfaction. There could be no mistaking the im- 
pression. It seemed to them as if it was God in His word, 
and not I, a Protestant minister, who was appealing to 
them. And the work was done. It was a realising the 
fact, which an apostle mentions, they " received it not as 
the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God." 

Some desultory conversation followed. It was univer- 
sally admitted by them, that these Scriptures were plain, 
clear, and easy enough — that they were without any doubt, 
contrary to what they had been taught by their clergy — 
that they could now see clearly enough, the reason they 
were not allowed to read the Holy Scriptures — that they 
would for the future, whatsoever might be said to the con- 
trary, read them for themselves. Even the person who ac- 
companied them, in order to vindicate the church of Rome, 
seemed thoroughly silenced. He did not say a word. And 
it was some time, before he could take courage to offer an 
objection. 

When he did speak again, it was in a subdued and hum- 
bled tone. He seemed to have lost confidence, either from 

C 



26 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



the feeling visible among his co-religionists, or from the 
difficulty of his position. c But/ at last he said, 'the Protes- 
tants made the Scriptures everything, as if all their religion 
was there, and not in tradition. The Roman Catholics on 
the other hand had many things of their religion in tradi- 
tion, — in the tradition of the church." He then went on 
to explain the theory of the Church of Rome. Our blessed 
Lord and Saviour was two or three years with His holy 
apostles — had told and taught them, during that long 
period, many things that are not written in the gospels, and 
these things, of which some were doctrines, and some were 
practices, have never been written in the Holy Scriptures, — 
that indeed the Holy Scriptures were not large enough to 
contain them all, — that these doctrines and practices were 
taught by the Holy Apostles by word of mouth, to the 
Holy Bishops and Clergy that came after Him, — that they 
handed them down by word of mouth to those that suc- 
ceeded them, and thus some doctrines and practices have 
been handed down in the church to the present day ; and 
these are the traditions of the church, the oral teaching of 
the church. Now, he continued, these traditions are to 
be held, as the Council of Trent says, in equal veneration 
with the Holy Scriptures. These traditions are in the 
Church of Rome, which is infallible, as being founded by 
St. Peter, infallibly preserved by her from loss or corruption 
or falsification, and all Christians are bound to believe, and 
observe them as much as the Holy Scriptures. When 
therefore, he said, in conclusion, you refer to the Scriptures 
and appeal to them, we will refer to tradition and appeal to it. 

I asked him, when he concluded, to tell me any one doctrine 
or practice of the Church of Rome, which was derived from 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



27 



tradition, — which was derived from tradition alone, and 
was not to be found in Holy Scripture ? 

He replied at once, — transubstantiation, the holy sacri- 
fice of the mass, purgatory, prayers for the dead, the wor- 
ship of the blessed virgin*, — and there were many others. 

' Then you acknowledge,' I asked, 'that these doctrines are 
not contained in the written Word of God/ And turning 
to all present, I called them all to witness the admission, 
that these things were not in the Holy Scriptures, and were 
only traditions. 

It was immediately exclaimed by several that he had often 
before been endeavouring to prove them to them, by texts 
from the Scriptures ; and that for their part they would not 
believe anything that could not be proved by the Word of 
God. 

He was somewhat disconcerted at this, but said that he 
could prove them by the Scriptures, but that the Church 
of Rome held them, not because they were in the Scrip- 
tures, but because they were in tradition, — that the true 
rule of faith was, not Scripture alone, nor tradition alone, 
but both together, — both Tradition and Scripture together. 
In some books, he said, it was described as the oral or un- 
written word, together with the written word, so as that 
the true rule of faith, in the church, was the written and 
the unwritten word together. And by this means it is that 
the true doctrines are partly in the one, and partly in the 
other. And so transubstantiation, and the mass, and pur- 
gatory, and the worship of the virgin are partly in the 
Scriptures, and partly in Tradition — the written and un- 
written word. 

' I suppose then,' I asked, • that you hold with your 
C 2 



28 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Church, that both tradition and scripture, — both the 
written, and unwritten word, as you call it, are from 
the same God, and consequently must agree exactly, and 
can never contradict each other.' 

e Certainly,' he responded emphatically. 

' Then of course/ I said, * you hold, that if in comparing 
the two, we find anything contrary, the one to the other, we 
must reject one of the two ? ' 

* Of course,' was his reply. 

( If then,' I asked, ' any of the doctrines or practices, 
which the Church of Rome professes to derive from tradi- 
tion, or the unwritten word, should be found contrary to 
the Scriptures, as the written word, there would then be 
a contradiction, and which would you reject ? ' 

There was much hesitation here in his manner. Our 
hearers observed it, and had evidently made up their minds 
as to the answer they would make, several of them exclaim- 
ing aloud, that they would hold to the Scriptures. I re- 
peated the question, asking which, in case of a contradic- 
tion, he was to receive, and which reject ? 

His answer was, — that there was no contradiction be- 
tween the Church of Rome, and the Scriptures, — that all 
the doctrines and practices could be proved in the Scrip- 
tures, — and he then boldly and confidently challenged me to 
name one that was contrary to the Scriptures, and that he 
was prepared to meet me. 

I named, — the use of the Latin language, an unknown 
language, in the service of the mass, — adding that it was 
clearly contrary to the commands of the Apostle in the very 
Scriptures already read. I then read again the passages I 
had before cited from 1 Cor. xiv. 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



29 



He was perfectly silent. The persons present looked 
significantly at each other. 

I then named, — the depriving the laity of the cup of 
wine at the administration of the Lord's Supper. And I 
read, as before, the several accounts of the institution in 
the gospels. 

He was still perfectly silent. The effect of this silence 
was very great, but very natural upon all present. 

The conversation then became general, it was taken up 
by the persons present, speaking one to the other, on va- 
rious points of the subject. I did not interfere, as I per- 
ceived every thing was tending in the right direction, — all 
tending to shake the confidence of the Roman Catholics 
present in their church, and to transfer it to the Holy 
Scriptures. 

After some time, I addressed them generally, and said 
that the church of Rome held practically two rules of faith. 
One was tradition, or the unwritten word, the other was 
Holy Scripture, or the written word. It was perfectly 
clear to the common sense of every one, that these two, 
supposed as they are, to come from the same God, cannot 
possibly contradict each other, but must necessarily agree, 
in every way. It is 1 always therefore in our power to try 
every tradition, professing to be divine, by comparing it 
with Holy Scripture, and if it be found contrary to the 
Holy Scriptures, it is contrary to the written word of God ; 
contrary to an admitted portion of the rule of faith, and 
therefore could not have come from God. It is not a true 
tradition, it is not a divine tradition. It must necessarily 
be only a pretended tradition. It is believed in the Roman 
Church, as much as in the Protestant Church, that the 



30 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Holy Scriptures are the written word of God. If there- 
fore we find anything taught under the name of a tradition, 
we have only to compare it with the Holy Scripture, the 
undoubted Word of God, and accept it, if it agrees with 
the Scriptures, and reject it if it disagrees. This is our 
best and simplest course, instead of holding disputations 
about the importance, or the truth of traditionary things, 
or perplexing ourselves with subtleties about rules of faith. 

He then said that that was private judgment— interpret- 
ing the Scriptures according to our private judgment, and 
not according to the interpretation of the church ; now the 
blessed St. Peter, the founder of the church of Rome, and 
the rock on which the Lord built his church, has said that 
we are not to put our private interpretations on the Scrip- 
tures, for that they are too hard for us to understand. 

I asked him to read the place where the Apostle said 
that there was to be no private interpretation of the Scrip- 
tures. 

He opened the well-known passage in 2 Peter i. 19., and 
read, " We have also a more sure word of prophecy." 

I interrupted him, with the request to mark the word 
"prophecy," saying, the Apostle's words were, "We have 
also a more sure word of prophecy." The particular word 
was important. 

He then read on, " We have also a more sure word of 
prophecy ; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto 
a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, 
and the day star arise in your hearts ; knowing this first, 
that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private inter- 
pretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the 
will of man : but holy men of God spake as they were 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



31 



moved by the Holy Ghost." There he added, it is said 
that no Scripture is to be privately interpreted. 

No, I replied, he does not say that no Scripture, but 
that no Prophecy in the scripture is of any private inter- 
pretation, meaning thereby that the Prophets were inspired 
by the Holy Ghost to deliver certain prophecies — that these 
prophecies were not of their own impulse, or their own 
interpretation — that they should be interpreted as the Holy 
Ghost, who inspired them, designed. This all refers to 
the prophecies, and the application or interpretation of the 
prophecies ; and has no reference to the Scriptures in 
general — has no reference to the commandments of God, 
or the invitations of the Gospel, or the loving words of 
Jesus Christ. Every man must read the Holy Scriptures 
for himself — must remember that they are the words of 
God, — that God who will judge him in the great day ; and 
who will therefore judge him for any wilful, selfish, perverse 
understanding of his word — must read them in faith and 
prayer, humbly, reverently, prayerfully looking for the 
teaching of that Holy Ghost who inspired them. Every 
man is bound to do it, like the Bereans : " These were more 
noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the 
word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scrip- 
tures daily, whether those things were so." — Acts xvii. 11. 
It was the Apostle Paul who had preached to them — an 
inspired Apostle, one who spake as he was moved by the 
Holy Ghost, and yet even his words were not taken for 
granted without examination. The Bereans heard him, 
listened to him, remembered him, and then searched the 
Scriptures to ascertain whether his preaching agreed with 
the Scriptures. Now this is all we ask for any man, and 



32 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



this is what we understand by the right to search the 
Scriptures, and the right of private judgment. It is that 
reverently, and humbly, and prayerfully, we may now do 
what the Bereans did before us, and were divinely praised 
for doing — that, if they might compare the words of an 
Apostle with the Holy Scriptures, so every man, Protestant 
and Roman Catholic, may now compare the preaching of 
their clergy with the Holy Scriptures, and receive or reject 
them according as they find them agreeing or disagreeing 
with the same. 

But he rejoined, men, who are unlearned and ignorant, 
are. not fit to interpret the Holy Scriptures. They are too 
hard to be understood, and if they are allowed to interpret 
them according to their own judgment, they will draw 
from them every sort of opinion ; there will be as many 
opinions as there are persons, 

I reminded him that this objection had been discussed 
before, — that the language of an English Bible was not so 
hard as the Latin of the Mass — that when his children did 
not learn their appointed tasks, and excused themselves by 
saying their tasks were too hard for them, he would prob- 
ably tell them to read them over again and again, and yet 
again, and that after reading often they would find them 
no longer hard but easy. Many a time, I said, when I 
was young, and complained that my lessons were too hard, 
I was desired, not indeed, to throw aside my books, but to 
read more and more, and again and again, as the means 
of getting over the difficulty. And in precisely the same way, 
I added, if you find the Holy Scriptures hard to be under- 
stood, read them again and again, and yet again, in a prayer- 
ful, humble, reverential, believing spirit, and in God's 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



33 



own time you will most certainly find them sufficiently 
easy in everything that is necessary for the salvation of 
your soul. 

Our little meeting soon after this dispersed, and I felt per- 
fectly easy as to the general effect of the conversation. In 
the course of a few following months, I had many private 
conversations with the young man, who had acted as the 
advocate of Rome on this occasion. We went through the 
whole range of the controversy, not in a spirit of contro- 
versy, but of inquiry, for his mind was passing through a 
great change. Before the year had expired he abandoned 
the church of Rome. 

He was much influenced by the language in St. Mark viii. 
1 — 13. It strongly dwelt on his mind, that our Lord and 
his disciples evidently did not keep or observe these tradi- 
tions — that he defended his disciples in rejecting them— 
that he declared that these traditions had the effect of set- 
ting aside the Word of God — and finally that the Jews re- 
jected the Holy Scriptures, that they might keep their own 
traditions. In some of our after-conversations he shewed 
that he regarded all this as an illustration of the very same 
system in the church of Rome, for that the Jewish priests 
urged their traditions in precisely the same way, and on 
the same principles as the Roman Priests. And more than 
all else, he seemed influenced by his own experience of the 
Scriptures. They seemed to stream in upon his mind in 
rays of beautiful light, as he expressed it, like the rays of 
the sun streaming in through the crimson, and green, and 
purple, and gold-coloured glass of an old church window. 
They were not only light, but beautiful light that conduced 
to meditation and prayer. And he did meditate and pray, 
C 5 



34 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



and suffered much, and in the end escaped his persecutors 
by emigrating to America. 

Note. — The following is the rule of the Index, respecting the Holy 
Scripture, constituting the law of the Church of Rome respecting them. 

" Since it is manifest by experience, that if Holy Bibles in the vulgar 
tongue be permitted everywhere without discrimination, there will arise 
more evil than good, owing to the rashness of men ; let the decision of the 
Bishop or Inquisitor be abided by in the matter, so that with the advice of 
the Confessor or Parish Priest, they may grant the reading of Catholic 
editions of the Bible in the vulgar tongue, to those whom they shall have 
ascertained to be likely to derive no harm, but rather an increase of faith 
and piety from such reading, which permission they must have in writing. 

" If any one shall presume to read or possess them without such per- 
mission, lie cannot receive the absolution of his sins ; unless he first gives up 
the Bible to the Ordinary. 

" Booksellers, also, who shall sell Bibles in the vulgar tongue to persons 
who have not this permission, or who shall give them in any other way, 
shall lose the price of the books— to be appropriated by the Bishop to charit- 
able purposes ; and shall be subject to other penalties at the will of the Bis- 
hop, according to the nature of the offence. 

14 The Regular Clergy, [that is, the Clergy of the Monastic Orders, 
Monks and Nuns alike, all being designated as ' regulars, 'J cannot read 
them or purchase them, unless with the permission of their Prelates." 

Such is the letter of the Law of the Church of Rome respecting the 
Holy Scriptures, drawn up by those appointed by the Council of Trent. 
According to its provisions, we see — First, No one can read or purchase 
the Scriptures, without the written permission of his Bishop. Second, No 
Bookseller can sell or dispose of them to other persons, without being 
liable to penalties, at the pleasure of the Bishop. Third, Even the Monks 
and Nuns are prohibited from reading the Scriptures, unless with special 
permission. 

This law is always in force. And although it speaks of Catholic edi- 
tions, there is only one such to be found in Italy — that by Martini, which 
is in twenty-three volumes ! These, however, could be bound in four or 
six substantial volumes, sufficiently cumbrous and inconvenient. 

The price at which it is sold is absolutely prohibitive. I could not pro- 
cure one at Rome in 1845, for less than 105 francs, that is, precisely Four 



HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



35 



Guineas ! The prohibitive nature of this price, may be seen from the 
fact, that Four Guineas are regarded as high wages by the rear, for a 
servant maid at Rome ; so that she would have to give a whole year's wages 
for a copy of the Scriptures ! And a franc a-day is the ordinary pay, i.e., 
two pauls, for the labouring man. Owing to the number of holydays and 
Saints' days on which he must not work, he has on an average, not more 
than four days, i.e., four francs a week — and thus he would have to 
give six months' earnings to purchase a copy of the Scriptures ! 

And yet this is the only one they are permitted to read, even when 
they can have in writing the permission of the Bishop. They must first 
have the recommendation of the Priest. They must then have the written 
permission of the Bishop. They must then give Four Guineas for the 
Volume ! Is it possible to prohibit it more effectually ? 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH, 



A TOUNG SCHOOLMASTER THE SUPPOSED WANT OP UNITY IN THE 

PROTESTANT CHURCHES WHEREIN TRUE UNITY CONSISTS MANY 

LOCAL CHURCHES AND ONE CHURCH OF CHRIST DIVISION IS 

OFTEN A SIGN OF LIFE, AND UNITY OF DEATH DIVISIONS IN THE 

CHURCH OF ROME SIMILAR TO THOSE AMONG PROTESTANTS 

MATTERS OF FAITH AND DISCIPLINE THE SAME OBJECTION URGED 

BY HEATHENS AGAINST CHRISTIANITY GREAT DIVERSITIES IN 

THE CHURCH OF ROME VARIOUS MODES OF ANSWERING THE 

OBJECTION AS TO WANT OF UNITY. 

Within a few miles of my parish was a young man, who 
kept a school and found in that way a very respectable 
livelihood. His character stood very high as a moral, reli- 
gious, pious man, very sincerely attached to the church of 
Rome, and very observant of all her ordinances. He was on 
that account patronised by all the priests of his church in 
the neighbourhood, as a fitting instructor for the children 
of the more respectable and wealthy of their congregations, 
and in consequence of this he was eagerly sought by many, 
who induced him after his school-hours were over, to visit 
their families, and impart private instruction to their chil- 
dren. He was thus engaged every evening among the 
families in the surrounding parishes. 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 



37 



A private communication was one day made to me, to the 
effect, that this young man's mind had lately become very 
much impressed with religion — that there was an unusual 
and intense earnestness about him — that he had undoubtedly 
been reading the Holy Scriptures — that he seemed drawn 
towards certain religious Protestants with an apparent desire 
for religious information — that he was known to spend hours 
at night upon his knees in prayer —that something seemed 
to press upon his mind, for that his lively spirit was gone 
and he was thoughtful and moody ; and in fine it was sug- 
gested to me, that it would be well to take an opportunity of 
seeing him, and drawing out his mind on religion. This 
communication was made to me, with a remark to the effect 
that the young man had spoken of me with the expression 
of a wish to see me ; and that my seeking him would be 
well-received by him. 

I was considering how this might best be done two days 
afterwards, when, late one summer evening, as I was saun- 
tering along the paths in the meadows, I observed him at a 
little distance. He saw me and entered the house of a 
respectable Protestant farmer, pausing at the entrance, and 
looking towards me, as if to let me clearly see where I could 
find him. At least I so interpreted his manner, and as I 
well knew this farmer, who was a constant attendant at my 
church, and was at the same time a Methodist of the old 
kind, I entered the house. 

The farmer was one of those simple, frank, religious men 
who do everything in an open way. He told me, in the 
presence of the young man, that he had had, some days 
before, some conversation with him about the salvation of 
his soul — about the Scriptures — and about Popery and An- 



38 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



tichrist — that he believed the Lord was doing a work in 
his heart — and that he thought the young man, like another 
in the Gospel, was not far from the kingdom of God. He 
then proposed that we should all kneel down together, and 
that I should offer a prayer to the Lord for his Holy Spirit, 
and claim his precious promise, that where two or three 
were assembled in his name, there he would be in the 
midst. I felt that the old Methodist counselled wisely. We 
prayed together. When we arose from our knees, the 
good farmer said he would withdraw, and he left me with 
the young man alone. 

He was bathed in tears : it was some time before he 
could arouse himself sufficiently to converse calmly. As 
might be expected, the conversation was in no degree con- 
troversial ; it ran simply on the convictions of sin, which 
seemed to have stricken to the innermost depths of his soul ; 
and on the doubts and difficulties he felt as to the grounds 
of hope of forgiveness. He seemed to feel keenly ; he was 
perfectly open, and thoroughly in earnest. He stated that 
his views as to sin, and his own natural and habitual sinful- 
ness, had lately been greatly changed and deepened ; and 
that as to the means of counteracting this sinful tendency 
of his nature, he found nothing satisfactory in all he had 
learned from his church ; and as to the mode of securing 
the forgiveness of his God ; he believed that all his life 
long he had been altogether astray. His spirit seemed 
thoroughly crushed and broken ; he was looking for help 
and found none. Our conversation was intensely interest- 
ing, but it was in no degree controversial, so far as the 
Protestant and Romish Churches were concerned. They 
were never named or alluded to by me, although, as a 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 



39 



matter of course, I was necessitated to set forth the great 
truths of the Holy Scriptures, as concerning the only true 
means of acceptance with God ; and to dwell on the un- 
dying consolations of the Gospel, and the fulness and free- 
ness of the criers of Christ. His name at such moments is 
a tower of strength — a Father of mercies — and a God of 
ail consolation, It will readily be believed that the inter- 
view was similar to that which is familiar to every true- 
hearted and earnest and faithful minister of Christ's Church 
when dealing with newly-awakened and strongly-touched 
sinners. It was a probing the wounds of sin and then 
ling them up. It was very much of the same cha- 
racter as many other interviews I have had from time 
to time with such persons, brought up amidst the advan- 
tages and privileges of a Protestant land — amidst the 
" green pastures and still waters " of a scriptural Church ; 
but whose hearts had long remained untouched and unim- 
pressed from above, and were at last awakened to a sense 
of eternal realities, in reference to which their whole lives 
previously had been nothing but a dream. 

Before we separated he told me, in reply to my inquiries, 
that he had attended a meeting of the Bible Society at the 
neighbouring town some months before — that a Roman 
Catholic Priest had openly on the platform opposed the 
proceedings — that a controversy arose among the speakers 
as to the right of the people to read the Holy Scriptures 
for themselves —that he left the meeting with a very strong 
desire to know more of the nature of this volume, respect- 
ing which the dissension arose. He had never before read 
the Holy Scriptures ; he now procured a copy, and he stated 



40 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



that it was in reading it his opinions had been modified, 
and his sense of sinfulness quickened. 

We parted for that night, but it was with an arrangement 
to meet soon again in the same house. 

We often met, and we were interested and profited. 
Gradually error after error was abandoned. And finally, 
after many months, he forsook the Church of Rome, be- 
coming an earnest, zealous, meek, and faithful Christian. 
He soon afterwards left that part of the country, and after 
a time emigrated to America. 

He often spoke to me of the supposed unity of the 
Church of Rome, and of the difficulty he had felt respecting 
the Protestant Churches, on account of their many divisions 
— on account of their want of that unity which was one of 
the notes or marks of the true church. He was still a 
member of the Church of Rome, when he first pressed this 
argument upon me ; and he argued it with all his power, 
for he struggled step by step before he finally abandoned 
her. He reminded me, that in the Nicene Creed we are 
said to believe in "One holy, catholic and apostolic 
church," and thus we are said to believe the true church 
to be One, not many — the true and spotless Bride or 
Spouse of Jesus Christ to be One, not many — that as there 
was but " One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and 
Father of all," so there was but one church — that as the 
members of the human frame may be many, yet must be 
in harmony with each other, so the various branches or 
members of the church, however many, must be in perfect 
harmony together — that the language of Holy Scripture 
seemed to imply this ; constantly exhorting Christians " to 
think the same thing, to mind the same thing," and " to 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 



41 



be of one mind," — that our Lord Jesus Christ himself 
prayed five times in a single prayer, that his people "might 
be one." — And that this unity seemed an essential of the 
Church of Christ. He seemed to think that there was at 
least an appearance of this in the Church of Rome, while 
there were endless divisions — innumerable sects — in the 
Protestant Churches. 

This argument he illustrated on different occasions, by 
different scriptures, as, of there being but one fold and one 
shepherd — as to brethren being at unity among them- 
selves — as to a house divided against itself being sure to 
fall, &c. &c. 

In reply to his difficulties on these points, urged as they 
were truly and sincerely, and in no partizan spirit, I en- 
deavoured to impress on him two or three principles that 
seemed to me greatly to elucidate this matter. 

In the first place, I tried to impress him with the fact 
that when our Lord spoke of the one fold and the one 
shepherd, his words contained an allusion to two parties — 
to the Jews and to the Gentiles. 

And his intention was to convey the idea, that there were 
not to be two distinct churches for these two, — that there 
was not to be one Church, one Saviour, and one mode of sal- 
vation for the Jews, and another Church, another Saviour, 
and another mode of salvation for the gentiles, but that there 
was to be but one and the same for both, — that the. Apos- 
tle Paul carries on the same truth, namely, that as he states 
in Eph. ii. 14 — 16. " Christ is our peace, who hath made 
both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of parti- 
tion between us ; having abolished in his flesh, the enmity, 
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances ; 



42 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



to make in himself of twain one new man, so making 
peace ; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one 
body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." There 
were thus two bodies to be united into one church. Jews 
and Gentiles were not to be two but one church. And 
this T said was to be the true meaning of our professing a 
belief " in One Church." 

He said frankly that he had never seen it in that light, 
and that it was so far satisfactory, as it explains the reason 
for its constituting the article of a creed. In fact, he added, 
in that sense it was an article of faith, but in the common 
view of it, he never could understand its being inserted in 
the creed. 

In the second place, I endeavoured to convince him, that 
there might be a variety of separate, particular, national, or 
local churches, which yet might constitute one whole or 
universal church. I illustrated this by referring him to 
his Testament, where he could read of the church of Rome, 
the church of Corinth, the church of Galatia, the church 
of Ephesus, the church of Phiilippi, the church of Thessa- 
lonica, the seven churches of Asia, and especially the 
church of Jerusalem. I said, that all these churches 
seemed distinct, and separate, and perfect churches, — that 
at least the church of Rome was not made more of in such 
language, than the church of Corinth, or any other of 
the churches named, — that they all seemed on an equality 
as particular or local churches, that of Jerusalem being 
the Mother of all. And I argued that the only difficulty, 
— if indeed it could be called a difficulty at all, — was to 
reconcile this diversity with unity, in other words, to recon- 
cile this number of churches with the Unity of the Church 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 



43 



of Christ ; hut this difficulty is not one of our creating, it 
is one on the face of Holy Scripture, and for that cause we 
are not disposed to be much affected by it. 

He saw this, and said, it certainly, if a difficulty at all, 
was a difficulty for which the Protestant principle or Pro- 
testant Reformation were not responsible, but he supposed 
that as the many branches of a tree constitute the one tree, 
and the many members of the body, constitute the one 
body, so the harmony or union of these several particular 
or local churches, may constitute them into the one Church 
of Christ. He said he could well understand this, and it 
was the way in which he had argued the question in his 
own mind ; many persons forming one family, many regi- 
ments forming one army, and many nationalities constitu- 
ting one people. He could therefore well understand this, 
but in the Church of Christ, there must be harmony of 
feeling and unity of mind. And this was as it seemed 
to him, the real objection to the divisions in the Protestant 
Churches. 

This induced me to lay before him a further principle, as 
it was apparent my words were not lost upon him. 

Let it be always remembered, I said, that union is not a 
necessary sign of spiritual life, as disunion is not a necessary 
evidence of spiritual death. If we enter a church or chapel, 
and observe the congregation, we are sure to find that how- 
ever their hearts may be united, yet their minds, habits of 
thought, and reflection create certain diversities and shades 
of opinion. There may be union on all that is great and 
important, though there are diversities on matters of lesser 
moment. Their very diversities of judgment are a sign of 
mental activity and of real life. They are not dead. If 



44 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



then we enter the churchyard, and sit beneath the shady 
cypress and the dark yew, and tread lightly the graves of 
the departed, there is found no disunion and no diversity 
there. There is no collision of mind or of feeling. All is 
peaceful, quiet, calm. This very unity is an evidence of the 
absence of all real life. They are truly dead, and all the 
life that is there, is that of the loathsome worm of the grave. 
And so in spiritual things. There is a union which is a 
sign of spiritual death, for it argues the absence of all intel- 
ligent activity and mental life. And there is a division, 
which is an evidence of spiritual life, for it proves the exis- 
tence of mental thought and active intelligence. Among 
the mummies of Egypt there are no religious differences, 
for all are dead. In the catacombs of Rome there is the 
most perfect union, for all are lifeless. Even among the 
children of the world, thoughtless, reckless as they are, there 
are no religious disputes, for all are spiritually dead. There 
are no varieties of opinion among a gallery of marble 
statues, for a perfect unbroken unity is evidence of death 
and not of life. The only true unity which is worth having, 
and which is quite consistent with diversity of sentiment, is 
the union of holy brotherhood — the union of the children of 
Christ — the union of Christian heart with Christian heart, 
and the union of both in Jesus Christ, where, knowing that 
a perfect unity of opinion is no more possible, than a per- 
fect similarity of face, and knowing that there may be an 
agreement on great things, agreeing to bear and forbear, 
with differences on little things, the hearts of Christians 
may be united in brotherly love and sympathy, each with 
the other, and all seek and find the bond of union in Him, 
who is "the corner-stone in whom all the building, fitly 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 



45 



framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord : 
in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of 
God through the Spirit."— Eph. ii. 20—22. 

And this is the union of the Protestant Churches, or at 
least this ought to be their union. In the Church of Rome 
herself, we find an illustration, for she has within her bosom 
Jesuits, and Jansenists, and Dominicans, and Franciscans, 
and Augustinians, and Benedictines, and Carmelites, and 
innumerable other orders or sects, all differing in outward 
manner, all differing in their rules of life, all differing in 
their opinions on some particulars, especially having all 
different practices — superstitious practices, as I think — pre- 
valent among them, and yet they all have this bond of 
union in the Pope. Whatever be their differences, and 
sometimes they hate, and vilify, and intrigue against one 
another, acting with the most hateful jealousy and malig- 
nant rivalry ; yet do they all find a bond of union in the 
Pope. It is thus too that the several Protestant Churches, 
with their diversities of forms and sentiments, too often 
also acting as enemies or rivals to each other, yet find their 
bond of union in Jesus Christ. 

He seemed to like this idea. His mind was in that state 
of first love for Christ that he was ready to renounce 
every church, indeed the whole world, for Christ : and he 
seemed to feel that there could be union with Christ, even 
when there was union nowhere else. c Surely,' said he, 
warmly, c we two, though of different churches, are united 
in Jesus." I responded as warmly. 

And this, I continued, is the scriptural view of this mat- 
ter. The Scriptures speak of a vast variety and number 
of churches. They speak of the assemblies of Christians 



46 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



in private houses as churches ; they speak of the meetings 
of believers in isolated towns as churches ; they speak of 
the aggregate of such assemblies or meetings in any ex- 
tended province as churches, and the compound or aggre- 
gate of these is the Church of Christ. The multitude of 
individual Christians in any place, taken together constitute 
the church of that place, and the aggregate of all these 
churches constitute the Church of Christ. The name of 
the locality thus given to the church or the name of some 
distinctive peculiarity given to a church, no more affects 
the reality of its Christianity than does the name of the 
country or the colour of the skin affect the reality of the 
Christian standing of a man. If a man be a true believer 
and follower of Jesus Christ in the Church of England — if 
a man be a true believer and faithful follower of Jesus 
Christ in the non-conforming churches — if a man be a true 
and faithful follower of Jesus Christ even in the Church of 
Rome, that man, as he is not a Christian indeed and 
altogether, merely from belonging to these in name, so 
neither is he excluded from Christianity merely because he 
assumes the name of these churches. The great rule 
of Scripture respecting nations is the same respecting 
churches, — " God is no respecter of persons, but in every 
nation [churcK] ; he that feareth God and worketh righte- 
ousness is accepted of Him." Some churches, as the 
Protestant, give a large amount of light and opportunity 
to their members ; other churches, as Rome, give com- 
paratively no light, and no opportunities to their members. 
But still, wherever there is light, and knowledge, and love, 
and faith in Jesus Christ ; there then is Christianity, and 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 



47 



there is a church, and there will be all the unity of Christian 
brotherhood and Christian love. 

He quite felt with me in all this, remarking with a gentle 
smile that the house in which we then were, was the house 
of a Methodist —a Calvinistic Methodist, a true-hearted and 
believing man. And yet he who was a Roman Catholic, 
found a closer union with that man, Calvinist and Metho- 
dist as he was, and with myself, a clergyman of the Protes- 
tant Church of England, than with any other two persons 
he had ever known He said with great ingenuousness, 
that he knew and liked, and respected several of the Priests 
of his own church, and had many a long conversation with 
them on religious subjects, sometimes in private, and 
sometimes when many of them were together, but still he 
had never felt the same union — the same attraction — the 
same drawing of his heart — the same drawing out of his 
inner feelings, as He felt towards either of us. He could 
thus understand the real Christians — the real lovers of 
Jesus Christ in all the sects, overlooking in others, and for- 
getting in themselves, the petty differences which separated 
them, and seeing in each other only a love for their common 
Saviour, feel themselves more truly united by that bond, 
than by anything of peculiar name or peculiar form, 

The tone and manner of this interesting young person 
as he spoke, was far more expressive than his words them- 
selves. There was something so true, so earnest, so inge- 
nuous in his manner, his heart seemed so full, and his eyes 
at times overflowing with the large tear, that gave a wonder- 
ful life and reality to all he said, and coming as it did from 
one, who was still a member of the Church of Rome, and one 
who, so far as he then imagined, was never to part from 



48 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



her, his words had, for me, a very special interest. I felt 
he could not be long retained where he then was. 

We had some conversation as to certain points that to 
his peculiar phase of mind and feeling were of more than 
usual interest, and after a time I reverted to the subject of 
Unity again. 

He said, in reply to a few words from me respecting the 
diversities of the religious or conventual orders, that it 
was not fair to say, as some of his own Church often said, 
that such diversities of orders did not imply a diversity of 
doctrine or practice. He was fully aware that the predes- 
tinarian controversy, existing between the Calvinistic and 
Wesleyan Methodists, was identical with the same contro- 
versy between the Jansenists and the Jesuits, not indeed 
as essential to these two orders, but the Jansenists were 
Calvinists, and the Jesuits were Arminians, and thus the very 
same controversy raged between them, which now divides 
the Protestant Churches, — the chief difference being that 
the Pope interfered, and declining to say which was right 
or which was wrong, decided on authoritatively suppressing 
and silencing the controversy, forbidding under the heavi- 
est penalties of the church any further discussion of the 
subject. He added with a smile, that this was a mode of 
settling a controversy hardly admissible among Protestants. 

To this I could not but assent. I added however that 
there was scarcely a subject of controversy among Protes- 
tants, that was not also a subject of controversy among 
Romanists. It is true that as they are always talking of 
their unity ; — as they claim to possessing the most perfect 
unity, so by constantly and repeatedly reiterating the asser- 
tion that they have unity in their church, they succeed in 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 



49 



making some believe them. The incessant and persevering 
assertion of many persons reiterating any one statement, 
is certain to secure a belief among many. But after all, 
there is not one subject of controversy among Protestants 
that does not also, to a certain extent, exist among Roman- 
ists. That great question already referred to, the question 
of predestination, is an instance of this. It is equally true 
respecting others. 

He asked me to what I alluded. 

I said that one of the most disturbing subjects of strife 
ever known in England, was that which related to the robes 
or the dress of the clergy — whether they should robe in 
white surplices or black gowns. The very same contro- 
versy existed in the church of Rome, in the various branches 
of the Mendicant Orders. They seem to rend the whole 
church to pieces about the length of their hoods and the 
color of their robes. The wisdom of the church of Rome 
was that she left them all to wear what they pleased, pro- 
vided only they submitted to the See of Rome. And 
after all, what was the difference between many of our 
sects and the Church of England ? It was merely that 
they did not wish to be under the control and authority of 
the bishop. They declared themselves independent of him. 
And the very same system exists at this moment in the 
church of Rome, for the various religious or conventual 
orders have very generally obtained the privilege of being 
totally exempt from the authority and jurisdiction of the 
local bishop. It is one of the privileges of the order of 
Jesuits, that its members are independent of the local 
bishop. This principle is admitted into the church of Rome. 

He quickly took me up here, and said that I brought to 
D 



50 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



mind that he had often heard that the Jesuit College at 
Clongowes was exempt from the authority of the bishop, 
although the College of Maynooth was subject to him. 

I said that it was an illustration of my position. But, I 
added, we can go much further, for whereas many of the 
diversities among Protestants are mere diversities of form 
in the services of their different churches, so the very same 
diversity exists in the church of Rome. In all the chapels 
of the conventual Orders, there is a most marked diversity 
of practice. Indeed each Order may be known by its 
peculiar, forms — peculiar prayers — peculiar rosaries — pecu- 
liar festivals — peculiar holy days — peculiar religious duties. 
They all differ as widely one from another, as do the ser- 
vices or forms of any of our Protestant Churches. The church 
of Rome shews her profound and practical wisdom in 
licensing each and all. It leaves her people to choose such 
things for themselves, provided only, they implicitly sub- 
mit to the authority of the Papal See. I think she is per- 
fectly right in doing so, and only wish she may have many 
imitators ; but what I complain of is, that while such 
diversities exist in her own body, she charges the Protes- 
tant Churches with a want of unity on account of the 
existence of diversities which also exists within her own 
bosom. 

He said that all this he feared was too true. He knew 
personally of subjects of endless dispute among such of his 
church as were earnest and zealous — quite as many as 
among Protestants ; but, he added, that it was generally 
agreed among Roman Catholics that their differences were 
small, and related only to small things — that they concerned 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 



51 



only matters of discipline, and never were known in Articles 
of Faith. And he asked me how I would answer that ? 

I reminded him that that was not universally true. I 
felt disposed to deal very gently with every argument that 
came from himself ; but he frequently put forward the 
arguments of others, in order to learn how to deal with 
them, — at least it seemed so to me. I was not disposed 
to spare such arguments, and therefore I now said, that 
this was far from being universally true. There were two 
controversies particularly, to which I would refer : one 
was, as to the seat of Infallibility. Italy and France are 
hopelessly divided ; as to whether Infallibility be vested in 
the Pope or in a General Council. And hundreds of 
theologians have spent all their strength in devouring one 
another like wild beasts, in settling this controversy, which 
has not yet been decided. Another is the dispute as to 
the Immaculate Conception ; as to whether the Conception 
of Anna, by which she gave birth to Mary, was as miracu- 
lous and free from original sin as the conception of Mary 
in giving birth to the Messiah. There never arose between 
two rival sects of Protestants, a controversy carried on 
with more fiend-like malice and ferocity than that which 
characterized the disputes between the rival Orders of the 
Dominicans and Franciscans on this subject. And it must 
be allowed that these concern matters of the first and last 
importance in the church of Rome. 

This person was a young man of about my own age — 
perhaps a year younger — and this parity of years led to 
much frank and sincere interchange of thought on the sub- 
ject of religion. He always stated his objections and 
difficulties whenever he felt any, and very frequently when 
D 2 



52 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



he felt none, he stated the objections and difficulties of 
others, so as to learn how I could deal with them. On the 
present point he said, he knew personally, subjects enough 
of difference among the zealous of the clergy of his Church. 

After some farther conversation on his own experience 
as to such sources of difference, I asked — 

Is it not a fact that the differences between the various 
Protestant Churches are not on articles of Faith, but prin- 
cipally upon mere points of discipline ? That one church is 
governed by Bishops and is called Episcopalian — that another 
is ruled by a Presbytery, and is thence styled Presbyterian 
— that a third is founded on the principles of the freedom 
of the particular church from the authority of any other, 
and is on that account called Independent — that one 
church prefers an authorized liturgy — that another chooses 
a liturgy of her own selection — that a third adopts a settled 
arrangement of extemporaneous prayer — that one has dea- 
cons to regulate its services — that another has church- 
wardens to attend to its affairs — that a third is carried on 
without either one or the other — that one church adopts 
a formal catechismal instruction — that a second prefers a 
Sunday school system — that a third has no system at all — 
that one Church prefers administering Baptism to infants 
— that another decides for baptising adults — that one 
adopts open-air preaching and class -meetings, and assem- 
blies in barns and out-houses — that another prefers a more 
formal and regulated system of public service — that one 
church adopts a black dress for its officiating ministers — 
that another prefers a white surplice — that a third will have 
neither one nor the other — these surely are all matters of 
discipline — all mere trifles that have nothing to do with 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 



53 



Articles of Faith. And yet these and such things as these, 
are the only, or at least the principal points of separation 
between the various Protestants among us. 

He said, laughing, that although it seemed very absurd, 
yet it was very true. These were not Articles of Faith ; 
they were merely matters of discipline. But are there not 
also, he asked, some differences on articles of faith ? 

I said — No. And then added, that when we speak of 
Articles of Faith, we mean the Articles of our creeds. 
Now, our several sects, Church of England, Church of 
Scotland, Independents, Methodists, Baptists, and generally 
all the Protestant Churches hold each and all the Articles 
contained in the Creeds. There may be shades of differ- 
ence as to the explanation of words and things, but they 
are all agreed in the main. My full conviction is that 
there is as close and compact a union of doctrine in the 
Protestant Church as in the several churches constituting 
the body of the Roman Church ; while in matters of dis- 
cipline, it was no easy matter to determine in which the 
greatest variety was found to exist. The great and plain 
truth seems to be this — Romanists have their differences 
about what their Church says, but they agree to refer all 
to the decision of the Papal See. There is their point of 
unity. Protestants have their differences among themselves 
about what the Holy Scriptures say, but they are all agreed 
to refer all to the authority of the Holy Scriptures. There 
is their point of unity. 

He was very much struck with this statement ; he seemed 
fully to take it in. It seemed to satisfy the feeling that 
was at work in his inner mind. He expressed himself very 
strongly. 



54 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



I then continued, and asked again — 

But what is the real force or strength of this objection ? 
It assumes, that because the Protestant Churches are di- 
vided, when they ought to be united, they therefore are 
not true churches, and there is no truth in Protestantism. 
Perhaps the simplest mode of dealing with this objection 
is, by producing a parallel. I will suppose the case of a 
Jew, or of a Mahommedan, or of a Hindoo, who is asked 
to become a Christian ; he at once refuses, on the ground 
that there is no truth in Christianity. He is pressed for 
his arguments, and he argues that the Christian Churches 
are divided — that there are Roman Churches and Greek 
Churches and Asiatic Churches and Protestant Churches — 
that they are thus divided when they ought to be united — 
that as Christianity is one and the Church of Christ one, 
and the people of Christ desired by Him to be one ; so 
none of these can be true churches of Christ, and there 
can be no truth in this Christianity. The argument of the 
Romanist as against the Protestant Churches, is strictly 
parallel to the argument of the Jew, the Mussulman, or 
the Hindoo, as against the Christian Churches at large ; 
and therefore, if there be any force in the argument against 
Protestantism on the ground of its divisions, then there is 
equal force in the argument against Christianity on the 
ground of its divisions. And if, on the other hand, the 
Christian may laugh to scorn the objections of the Jew, 
the Mussulman, and the Hindoo, as against Christianity, 
then may the Protestant laugh to scorn the objections of 
the Romanist, as against our Protestantism. 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 



55 



Twenty-seven years have passed away since these con- 
versations, of which the foregoing was a very small portion, 
were held. Since then I have seen no reason to change 
my opinions or to depart from my position. On the other 
hand, I have visited many lands and have been a not in- 
attentive observer of the working of the church of Rome, 
both in the city of the church, in Rome herself, — and in 
almost every country in Europe. 

That opportunity for observation through many succes- 
sive years has strengthened my views, and I feel more 
strongly than ever, that of all the churches of Christendom, 
the very last that ought to speak of diversities or divisions, 
is the church of Rome. It is her boast and pride, that she 
admits and sanctions almost every diversity of doctrine and 
of discipline, provided there be unity in submission to the 
Supreme Pontiff of Rome. I have myself witnessed in the 
church of the Propaganda Fide in Rome, during the season 
of the Epiphany, no less than five different churches, as 
the Greek, the Armenian, the Nestorian, the Syriac, the 
Coptic, as well as the Roman, all celebrating the Lord's 
Supper, at different altars, and in different ways. The 
ceremonies were different. The manner of service was 
different. The forms of worship were different. The lan- 
guages were different. In short, I have never seen or 
observed so great a dissimilitude between the Lord's Supper 
in the Lutheran — the Evangelical, the Episcopalian, the 
Presbyterian, the non- conforming churches of the Pro- 
testant Communion, as I have seen and observed among 
those sections of Eastern Churches that are joined in the 
communion of the Roman church. I have witnessed seven 



56 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



different forms — seven different liturgies— seven different 
languages — and seven different modes of celebrating the 
Lord's Supper, all in the church of St. Andrea della Valle 
in Rome. I have witnessed all the Greek rites in a Greek 
Church — I have seen all the Armenian rites in an Armenian 
church in that city. Every diversify of doctrine and liturgy 
and discipline, and language, is allowed and formally sanc- 
tioned, provided only all parties observe the one point of 
Unity — submission to the supreme Pontiffs of Rome. So 
far is that carried, that in the Concordats or Articles of 
agreement with Rome, there are special clauses reserving 
to whole countries the right to have their own liturgy and 
rites, and language, in preference to that of the Romish 
Church.* 

In all this the church of Rome has exhibited her pro- 
found worldly policy. She imagines and sanctions the 
utmost diversities and divisions, but she demands a perfect 
unity under the papal See, and therefore she is the very 
last church in Christendom that should point disparingly 
at the diversities or divisions of Protestant Christianity, or 
should make Unity the essential note or mark of the true 
church. 

The same remark applies to the religious worship of the 
various Roman Catholic countries of Europe. No obser- 
vant traveller will fail to see a very marked difference, 
amidst much that is similar, between the Roman Catholic 
religion of Italy — of Germany — of France — of Ireland, and 

* Shortly after the Reformation, the Pope offered to sanction the Book 
of Common Prayer in the Church of England, notwithstanding all its 
Protestantism, if only the Church of England would acknowledge the 
authority of the Papal See. 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 



57 



between them all, and that of England. This difference is 
observable especially in public worship, not indeed in the 
Mass-service, which preserves a sort of unity, but in almost 
all the other services. The prayers, — the litanies, — the 
rosaries — the festivals are different. Even in the litanies 
to the Virgin Mary, there is as wide a difference between, 
for example that used in my own presence in Switzerland, 
at Einsedlin, and that recited in France, at Paris, as it is 
possible to conceive. Very frequently the beginning and 
the end are the same, while a totally new and different 
series of petitions, form the middle of the litany. I have 
some of these diverse litanies before me at this moment, 
having purchased them on the spot. The same remark ap- 
plies to their forms of prayer. The series of services in the 
chapels of the monkish establishments is widely different 
from the services in another of a different order. They are 
incomparably more diverse than anything with which I am 
acquainted in the services of the conformist, or non-con - 
formist churches. And as to items or points of belief, every 
one who has travelled, is aware of the immense diversities of 
opinion which prevail as to infallibility, — as to the worship 
of the Virgin Mary — as to the degree of worship due to 
images and pictures — as to indulgences, penances, &c. 

Still her advocates are always vaunting of her unity, and 
objecting to the want of unity, among Protestant Christians ! 

When engaged in controversy with Roman Catholics, I 
have met this objection sometimes in the following way. 

I have narrated a scene which I may have witnessed, in 
which multitudes knelt or prostrated themselves before a 
little mouldy bone, or dirty rag, — some shivered splinter 
of a bone, or thread of some wretched rag, palmed on them 
D 5 



58 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



as the relic of some saint — superstitiously rubbed their 
foreheads to it, or devoutly kissed it, and prayed to it in 
precisely the same way, so far as appearances went, as when 
adoring the Host on the altar, which they imagine to be 
their God. 

Or, I have read from some of their devotional works, 
published in Roman Catholic countries, long passages ex- 
pository of their faith, or long prayers illustrating their 
devotion, or careful directions to govern their practice, — 
passages of such nature as I knew would be rejected and 
denounced by the hearers, such works being published by 
authority. 

Or, I have stated my having seen the sacrifice of the 
Mass openly sold in the churches — having myself per- 
sonally purchased them, and got a receipt formally signed 
for my money — and this money taken by the priests who 
were selling them, under pretence of their being able to 
relieve the souls in Purgatory, and believed by the people 
who were buying them, to be efficacious to relieve the 
souls of their departed friends. 

Or, I have stated my having seen and examined many 
pictures and images, reputed to be miraculous, that is, re- 
presented as able to work miracles, by the priests, and be- 
lieved as such by the people — weeping pictures, speaking 
images, winking Madonnas, &c. And the people in thou- 
sands worshipping them and giving money to them, which 
the priests appropriated to themselves. 

Or, I have read from works authorized abroad, and some- 
times published in this country, statements speaking of the 
Virgin Marv as Omnipotent, as descending every Saturday 
night to Purgatory to release her worshippers — as able to 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 



59 



command her Son Jesus Christ ; statements practically pla- 
cing her in the stead of God. 

Or, I have stated that I have been present and witnessed 
members of the church of Rome, going on their naked 
knees, in circles round and round upon stones, on the top 
of a mountain, believing that they removed their sins by 
the shedding of their own blood streaming from their knees, 
and stating to myself that they were so taught by their 
priests. 

I have stated these things and things like these to mem- 
bers of the church of Rome, when boasting of their per- 
fect unity ; and they invariably exclaimed against them and 
against their being supposed to believe such doctrines or to 
follow such practices. They always reject them, and often 
denounce them, saying that the Roman Catholics of Eng- 
land ought not to be judged by the Roman Catholics of 
other countries. 

I then ask them, Where is their boasted unity ? If thou- 
sands in Italy worship mouldy bones, and dirty rags, and 
believe in their miraculous powers, and Roman Catholics of 
England reject and denounce this, then there is no unity 
between them and the Roman Catholics of England. If 
thousands in Spain believe in miraculous images and pic- 
tures, and spend their time and their money on them, and 
if the Roman Catholics of England object to and oppose 
such superstitions, then it is clear their faith and practice is 
not at unity with that of the Roman Catholics of Spain. 
If millions in France read and believe the strangest doc- 
trines respecting the Virgin Mary, her nature and her 
powers, and the Roman Catholics of England reject and 
condemn the books teaching these things, then it is plain, 



60 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



there is no unity between them on such points. If the 
whole population of some countries believe that they can pur- 
chase masses, by which to relieve the souls of their friends 
in purgatory — and if the priests teach them so and sell 
the masses, then if the Roman Catholics of England reject 
and condemn this, it is an evidence that they are not of 
one mind with the Roman Catholics of those other coun- 
tries on the subject. If multitudes in some lands believe that 
they can take away their sins by painful, absurd, and super- 
stitious practices, as that of walking on their knees till the 
blood streams from them, and if the Roman Catholics of 
England refuse to hold the same belief or to do the same 
penance, then it is practical evidence of a wide difference 
of belief and practice, and of the absence of the unity of 
which they speak so much. 

I have found by experience, that this mode of arguing 
is frequently very successful in silencing some persons. 
The clearly describing a practice like these, or the reading 
an objectionable passage from some of their books, and 
asking them whether they approve the one or believe the 
other, will very often elicit a reply that will illustrate a want 
of unity ; and illustrate it in such a way as will be very 
effective upon all who witness it. At least I have fre- 
quently found persons sorely troubled, and sometimes en- 
tirely silenced by it. And therefore, whenever they deny 
or reject or denounce any such doctrine or practice or 
writing, I always remind them that their doing so is an 
evidence of as great a difference of private judgment in 
the Roman Churches as in the Protestant Churches. 

I have frequently witnessed the effects of another mode of 
dealing, with those who argue in a spirit of controversy, 



THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 



61 



and vaunt the unity of their Church, against the divisions 
among Protestants. They boldly claim the most perfect 
and entire unity, saying that although there may be differ- 
ences, as to matters of discipline, yet every one through the 
whole church is in the most perfect accord on every article 
of Faith, It is perfectly surprising and sometimes imposing, 
how confidently this assertion is hazarded. 

I have asked such persons, especially when many are 
present, whether they believe that Protestants, being out 
of the Roman Church, can be saved ? 

Being afraid of being thought illiberal and bigotted, espe- 
cially when many persons are present, they usually answer 
in the affirmative — that Protestants may be saved out of the 
Church of Rome. 

I have then read the article of their creed : after specifying 
transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, papal supremacy, 
&c. and asserting these to be the Catholic faith of the 
Roman church, it goes on to say, " This is the true Catho- 
lic faith, out of which no man can be saved." Here then is 
an article of faith. Do you believe it 1 

If there are many Roman Catholics present, this ques- 
tion is certain to divide them, and on such occasions, it is 
perfectly surprising to witness the violent evidence they 
give, shewing how little unity exists among them on this 
"article of faith." 

The desire of some to adhere to this creed, and the desire 
of others to be thought liberal, leads to strange collisions. 
It always puts an end to any previous boasting on the sub- 
ject of unity. 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 



A CONVERSATION ON THE HOLINESS OF CHURCHES THE CLAIM OF 

THE CHURCH OF ROME AS THE ALONE " HOLY CHURCH " HER 

FIRST GROUND, HOLINESS OF DOCTRINE THIS AS APPLICABLE TO 

OTHER CHURCHES CONTRADICTION OF THE CHURCH OF ROME 

HER SECOND, HOLY SACRAMENTS HER THIRD, HOLY SAINTS 

THIS EXAMINED MARTIN LUTHER AND HENRY VIII. THE OB- 
JECTION AS CONNECTED WITH THEIR NAMES ANSWERED. 

There was in a parish several miles distant from me, a small 
knot of very active and zealous members of the Church of 
Rome. They used to meet often, and by books and conversa- 
tion managed to make themselves up on controverted sub- 
jects. Some of them distinguished themselves by their steady, 
determined opposition to the movement at work, at that 
time, in the minds of the masses, and they not unfrequently 
used to challenge the more earnest and best-informed Pro- 
testants, to discuss the contested points of doctrine and 
discipline. 

One of these was a clever, intelligent man. He was the 
head of the Carmelites or Scapularians in the district, and 
was much looked up to by the peasantry, as a right, proper 
man. He was shrewd and sharp, but cold and unimpressi- 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 



63 



ble. His temper was perfect equanimity itself. No one 
could speak a word that could change the still immoveable 
expression of his features. He was as a marble, or rather 
a wooden statue, when speaking or enquiring. And yet his 
appearance was prepossessing. A bald head, a smooth 
chin, a sleek shining face, a quick keen dark eye, a nose 
intensely Irish, and presenting altogether, a neat, clean, 
precise-looking personage. 

He was the Head of the confraternity of Carmelites or 
Scapularians of the district. These persons all wear a 
scapular inside their clothes, near the left shoulder. They 
meet together for the purpose of praying souls out of pur- 
gatory, and they believe — it is a privilege granted to all 
that wear the scapular in life, a privilege secured to them 
on the faith of a Papal Bull — that the Virgin Mary descends 
every Saturday night to purgatory, and bears with her to 
heaven all who have worn the scapular. 

This man was supposed to be such a master of religion, 
that he could easily confute every argument that could be 
advanced by me. Some of his fellow-parishioners, who 
were enquiring into religious things for themselves, and who 
yet had great confidence in him, proposed that there should 
be a meeting between us in the presence of some twenty of 
their members. We met at the house of a Roman Catholic 
farmer, and the question proposed was — The True Church. 

He commenced by stating that the church is holy — that 
it is one of the notes or marks of the true church that it 
is holy — that in the creed called the Nicene and which is re- 
ceived by Romanists and Protestants alike, it is called the 
" one holy catholic and apostolic church," and in the 
apostles' creed is called " the holy catholic church," — and 



64 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



that this note or mark of holiness, was to be the test by 
which the claim of any church must be tried, if it claims to 
be the true church of Jesus Christ. He then referred to a 
number of places in Holy Scripture, in which it is stated 
that the people of God should be a holy people ; as, " Ye are 
an holy nation," and " Be ye holy, for the Lord our God is 
holy," and " Without holiness no man shall see the Lord." 
And thus, as he conceived, he proved that holiness was an 
essential mark of the true church, concluding by asking me 
whether I assented to his statement. 

I immediately assented, saying, that there could be no 
doubt or question as to the necessity for holiness. God is 
a holy God ; the Saviour is a holy Saviour ; the Spirit is a 
holy Spirit ; and, therefore, every doctrine revealed of God 
must necessarily be a holy doctrine ; and every practice 
taught of God must be a holy practice. His heavens, I 
added, are a holy place j His angels are holy angels ; His 
redeemed and glorified people are a holy people. And in 
the holy scriptures the name given to all His people on 
earth is that of " saints," which means " holy ones," or 
■ ' sanctified ones." There can be no doubt or question, 
therefore, that holiness, in the meaning of the scriptures, 
is a fitting test to try every doctrine and every practice, and 
a mark or note of the true church : a church must be a holy 
church. 

This admission on my part seemed to give him great 
satisfaction. He seemed to have expected a different an- 
swer, though it was difficult to imagine on what grounds. 
At all events, he expressed himself greatly pleased, as if 
relieved of the necessity for proving his position. 

He then said, that holiness being a mark or note of the 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 65 



true church, as had been admitted by me, the next point 
for him to prove was, that this note or mark belonged to 
the Church of Rome. Now, a church, he added, may be 
holy in three different ways. She may have, in the first 
place, holiness of doctrine — that is, that all her doctrines 
are holy ; or she may have, in the second place, the means, 
the sacramental means of imparting holiness to her mem- 
bers ; or, lastly, she may have produced and nourished and 
perfected the most holy saints as her children. A church, 
he added, in conclusion, may be holy in any one of these 
three particulars ; but, if a church has each and all of them 
at the same time, then indeed, she is a holy church ; and 
this — this, he said emphatically, is the Church of Rome ; 
for all her doctrines are holy — all her sacraments are means 
to holiness — and all the saints were her members. 

I was pleased with the precision of his statements, say- 
ing, that it would enable all our hearers to understand the 
argument clearly ; and I suggested that we should take 
each of these three particulars separately, and examine their 
applicability to our respective churches. I suggested that 
this would be our easiest course for ourselves, as well as the 
most simple and intelligible for our hearers. This sugges- 
tion met with universal approval, so I begged of him to 
state the first particular. 

He was a precise and methodical controversalist in the 
beaten track, as laid down in most of the controversial 
works of his church ; so he said, that all the doctrines of 
the Church of Rome were holy. The doctrine of the 
Trinity, of the God-head of the Son, Jesus Christ, of the 
Personality of the Holy Ghost, of the incarnation, of the 
atonement, of regeneration, of sanctifi cation, . of redemp- 



66 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



tion — all these doctrines were holy doctrines, and the 
church of Rome which holds and teaches them must be a 
holy church. He then opened Milner's " End of Contro- 
versy," and read the same argument from him in these 
words. "It is time to speak of the doctrine of the Catholic 
church : If this was once Holy, namely in the Apostolic 
age, it is Holy still, because the church never changes her 
doctrines, nor suffers any persons in her communion to 
change it, or to question any part of it. Hence the ador- 
able mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation, &c, taught 
by Christ and his apostles, and defined by the four first 
general councils, are now as firmly believed by every real 
Catholic, throughout the whole communion, as they were 
when these councils were held." Such, he added, was 
his argument, proving that the doctrines of his church were 
holy doctrines ; and therefore the church of Rome was a 
holy church. 

I replied, by saying, that all the doctrines he had speci- 
fied were certainly holy doctrines. And that every one of 
them were held in our Protestant Churches, as strongly, as 
clearly, and as fully as in the Roman churches. The 
Trinity, the God-head of Jesus Christ, of the Holy Spirit, 
the incarnation, the atonement, &c ; were all held among 
us as well as among them. And therefore, if this is to be 
the evidence of holiness of doctrines, then the Protestant 
Churches are fully as holy as the Roman churches, and 
there can be no exclusive claim to this epithet ; and thus 
we have as much right to call ourselves "the Holy Catholic 
Church," as any other in Christendom. I appealed to all 
present, and then to himself, as to whether it was not a 
fact that the Protestants — especially the Church of Eng- 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 



67 



land in her Articles — quite as much as the Romanists held 
these doctrines, and whether this fact, so far as it went, 
did not give us as much claim to the epithet of " Holy." 

I perceived at once, that the persons present saw the 
argument as clearly as myself ; so I continued and said, 
that the question was not as to the holiness of those doc- 
trines which both our churches hold alike, but of those 
others on which we differ. There are some things on which 
both churches are agreed. There are others on which we 
differ. The real question is — whether those doctrines of 
the church of Rome on which we differ, and which we re- 
ject, are holy doctrines ? Here, I said — here, for example, 
is the creed of the church of Rome, commonly called the 
creed of Pope Pius. In this creed, now the recognized 
creed of the church of Rome, are, first of all, the articles of 
the Nicene creed, and secondly, all the articles of the 
council of Trent added to them. Now the question at 
present between us is not, as to the holiness of the former 
articles, but as to the latter. These are, — the supremacy of 
Peter, the authority of the church of Rome, the doctrine 
of a purgatory, the doctrine of indulgences, of masses for 
the dead, of images and relics, and all such things as are 
peculiar to the church of Rome. The question between us 
is, as to whether these are holy doctrines, — so holy as to 
secure to your church the title of "the Holy Church," and 
to deprive us of that title because we reject them. We 
feel that they are unscriptural and therefore unholy. 

There was here a pause, as my opponent gave no an- 
swer or explanation. 

I asked him to prove that these peculiar doctrines, espe- 
cially that of purgatory and of indulgences, were holy. 



68 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



He was still silent. He seemed perplexed, and all present 
seemed more interested than ever. 

T then continued, saying that there were two considera- 
tions in favour of our Protestant Christianity. In the first 
place, all its doctrines were in the Holy Scriptures, were 
drawn from them, were founded on them, and on them 
alone. They were all in the holy word of the holy God ; 
and therefore they must necessarily be holy doctrines. On 
that point there can be no dispute. In the next place, all 
its doctrines are received and believed in the Church of 
Rome herself, and therefore she must allow those to be 
holy ; for example, we believe two sacraments, Baptism, 
and the Lord's Supper : the Church of Rome believes 
them also. We believe the Holy Scriptures to be the 
word of God, and so far a rule of faith ; the Church of 
Rome believes this also. We believe in the intercession of 
Jesus Christ, — the Church of Rome believes it also. She 
may indeed add, and does add, five other nominal sacra- 
ments to our two, and adds tradition to our Scriptures, and 
adds the intercession of Mary and the saints to Christ's ; 
but still she believes and admits all ours. And so with all 
the other points of difference ; she holds all the doctrines of 
our Protestant Christianity, however she may add to them. 
And therefore she must acknowledge our doctrines to be 
holy ; and therefore so far as doctrines go, she must 
acknowledge that our church has a good claim to the title 
of a holy church. 

To this the only reply was, that the Protestant Church 
had not so many or so effectual means of promoting holiness 
in her members ; for although her doctrines were certainly 
held likewise by the Church of Rome, yet she had not in 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 



69 



the sacraments so many means of imparting the grace of 
holiness to her members. The Protestants had but two, 
while the Church of Rome had seven. 

I reminded him that that was the second way in which 
her members were to test the claim to holiness — that the 
first was the holiness of doctrine ; that now he seemed 
to have abandoned that, and to have entered on the 
second test, namely the sacramental means of imparting 
holiness. 

He acknowledged this. 

I therefore reminded him, that the Protestant Churches 
had the sacraments also as well as the Church of Rome, — 
that they had the sacrament of Baptism which Christ ap- 
pointed — that they had the sacrament of the Lord's Supper 
which Christ instituted ; and that therefore whatever spe- 
cial means of sanctity or holiness are found in the sacra- 
mental rites, they are not the exclusive property of either 
church, they must belong to both alike. 

He said, that all this might be true, so far as these two 
sacraments are concerned, but these were only two, and 
the Protestant Churches had only these two. The Church 
of Rome had five others, Confirmation, Penance, Marriage, 
Orders, and Extreme Unction. And thus she had five 
additional means of sacramental grace, over and beside the 
two that Protestants possessed. This was uttered in a 
tone and manner that argued the speaker's conviction of 
having set the argument at rest. And it seemed to have 
weight with our hearers. 

1 asked him quietly, perhaps humbly, whether he did not 
agree with me that the sacraments of Baptism and the 



70 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Lord's Supper were the two greatest of all the sacraments, 
as being the two specially appointed by Christ himself. 

He said, that it might perhaps be so — that he believed so. 

I then reminded him, that we had those two sacraments 
that are admitted to be the greatest and most precious — 
the two appointed by Christ himself. And now, I conti- 
nued, have we not all the others also, except one ? We 
have confirmation, although we do not call it a sacrament, 
so that we have the thing, though not the name. We 
have confession and repentance, not indeed to the ear of a 
man, but to God himself. We have orders, for we are as 
strict in ordaining ministers as the Church of Rome herself. 
We have marriage as fully as in any other church. It is true, 
we do not give the name of sacrament to these rites, but 
we have thern, we have the rites themselves under their 
own proper names. And therefore, whatever means of 
sanctity or holiness may be in them, they belong to us as 
much as to the Church of Rome. We do not call Confirm- 
ation a sacrament, for it was not appointed as such by 
Christ ; we do not call Confession and penance a sacrament, 
as it never was so appointed, but we insist on Confession of 
sin to God, and the necessity of repentance towards God. 
We do not call Marriage a sacrament of the gospel, for it 
began in Paradise and exists among Jews and Heathens as 
much as among Christians. Neither do we call Orders a 
sacrament, for it was never so appointed by Christ. What- 
ever is valuable in any or all of these, we have retained ; we 
retain the things themselves, with the alone exception of 
Extreme Unction, and we reject it, because it was never ap- 
pointed by Christ. And thus, if there be any special 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 



71 



means of sanctity or holiness in these ordinances, then we 
have them in all our Churches as much as in the Church of 
Rome. 

He seemed to hesitate here, as if he had not seen the 
point in this light before. 

I therefore asked him to name any one real means of 
grace, or holiness, in the Church of Rome, which we did 
not also possess. 

On his still hesitating, I said, that I would speak a few 
words on two remarkable contradictions in the nominal 
sacraments of his church. One in relation to marriage, and 
the other, to extreme unction. 

The first is this. — She holds that celibacy is a state more 
holy than matrimony — that unmarried people as such, are 
more holy than married persons as such. Now all this 
may seem to me, to be very absurd, or very unscriptural, 
or very wrong, but still it is very intelligible. I can fully 
understand it. But contrary to this, is another doctrine 
which teaches that the sacraments confer more grace, giving 
an increase of grace, so that after receiving a sacrament, we 
have more holiness than before. Now, among these sacra- 
ments, which thus confer an increase of grace, is matri- 
mony, and therefore the sacrament of matrimony confers a 
larger amount of the grace of holiness than before. Here 
then is the contradiction. Celibacy is held to be a state 
more holy than matrimony. And yet matrimony, as a 
living sacrament, confers more holy grace on the married ; 
though all the while it is a state less holy than celibacy ; — 
this contradiction, I said, has never yet been explained to 
my satisfaction. 

Some of those present seemed greatly amused at this 



72 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



contradiction ; and though I paused for an explanation, my 
opponent had nothing to offer. I therefore said, that I 
would direct attention to a curious contradiction involved 
in the supposed sacrament of extreme unction. When we 
ask of what value is it, and what special work does it ac- 
complish on the believer, they reply that it takes away the 
" relics or remainders " of sins, which had not been taken 
away by the previous sacraments. Now this language 
implies an impeachment of the efficiency of the preceding 
absolution, whether in the administration of the sacrament 
of the Lord's Supper, or in the sacrament of penance ; for 
if that absolution was complete, valid and effective, it must 
have absolved all the sins, and yet it is now said that ex- 
treme unction takes away the " relics or remainders " of 
sins ! Either the absolution was effective, and then the 
extreme unction is useless, or the extreme unction was ef- 
fective, and then the absolution is worthless. And so again 
there seems a contradiction between extreme unction and 
purgatory, for if extreme unction took away all the " relics 
and remainders " of sins, then there can be nothing re- 
maining for purgatory to purge away. And if there be any 
thing for purgatory to remove, it plainly implies that nei- 
ther the absolution has taken away all the sins, nor extreme 
unction, all the '* relics and remainders," or there certainly 
could have been nothing at least of the guilt for purgatory 
to remove. 

All this seemed plain enough, and yet on asking my 
opponent to resolve the apparent contradiction, he evidently 
was embarrassed. He said, in reference to purgatory, it 
purged away the suffering or penance — the temporal punish- 
ment due for the sins, and not the guilt of the sin. This 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 



73 



he said, was removed by the sacraments. As to the other 
part of the difficulty, however, he was perfectly silent. 

A shrewd man, who was present, asked him whether the 
absolution given by the priest did not take away all the 
guilt, and whether, when the sick man had received the 
communion, in a fit state of mind, that is, confessed and 
contrite, all the guilt of his sins was not removed ? He 
said he much wished for an answer to that question. 

Our friend was sadly perplexed at this, especially when 
thus put to him by one of his co-religionists, but he con- 
tinued silent ; so the question was repeated, and all present 
watched for an explanation, but it never came. They were 
evidently disappointed. 

I suggested our passing to the third mark of holiness. 

He said that there could be no dispute on that point, for 
the Protestants could make no claim to the holy saints. 
The Protestant church has never produced one single holy 
saint. She might boast of Martin Luther, who broke his 
vows of celibacy and married a nun, who also broke her 
vows ; she might boast of Henry VIII. with his multitude 
of wives, but she could not produce one single holy saint. 
Now the church of Rome produced all the saints ; she is holy, 
for she is the blessed mother of all the saints ; all the saints 
were members of the church of Rome ; — belonged to her 
communion, and held all her articles of faith. 

This statement — apparently made in a tone to regain 
lost influence — was not without some influence upon our 
hearers, and I saw they were waiting for my reply. I merely 
asked him to be so kind as to repeat for me the " Confiteor " 
or form of confession. 

E 



74 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



He complied, ie I confess to Almighty God, to the blessed 
Virgin &c." 

And now, said I, that you have so kindly given to me the 
names of the Virgin Mary and the principal Apostles, the 
names of those you call the queen of saints, and chief and 
greatest of all the saints, I should like to know whether 
they belonged to the church of Rome ? This question 
elicited a smile that shewed how all present felt its point. 
I therefore continued, We never read that the Virgin Mary 
was a member of the church of Rome. The scriptures 
speak of her only at Jerusalem . We never read that John 
the Baptist was ever at Rome. The scriptures speak of 
him only nigh to Jerusalem. As to Peter, and Paul, and 
James, and John, and all the Apostles, we never read of 
them as members of the church of Rome, some of them 
may have visited that city, but we read of them all in the 
scriptures, as members of the first of all churches, the 
church of Jerusalem. 

He acknowledged this so far as the Virgin Mary and 
John the Baptist were concerned ; and added that he did not 
mean in what he had said to refer to them, but only to the 
later saints, St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom, 
St. Ignatius, St. Ambrose, and to such holy and blessed 
ones as St. Dominic, St. Francis, St. Bernard. All these 
belonged to the church of Rome. They all lived and died 
before the Protestant Reformation. 

I am sure, I replied, with all possible courtesy, you will 
at once acknowledge your mistake here, when I ask you of 
what place St. Augustine was the bishop ? 

He replied — Hippo, in Africa. 

And, I continued — St. Chrysostom, where was he bishop? 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 



75 



He replied at once — Constantinople. 

Then, said I, you will at once acknowledge that neither 
one nor the other belonged to the Church of Rome. Hippo 
was in Africa, and St. Augustine was a bishop of the 
ancient African Church, and not of the Roman Church. 
And, as Constantinople was then and is still the chief city 
of the Greek or Eastern Church, so St. Chrysostom be- 
longed to the Greek or Eastern Church, and not to the 
Roman or Western Church. And so with many others of 
these saints ; they never belonged to the church of Rome. 
But as for the so-called saints of later times, I see no 
force in the argument, and for this reason, — all these so- 
called saints are saints of her own choosing, and naming, 
and canonizing ; and as Protestants do not pretend to 
canonize saints, so the church of Rome has it all to her- 
self. She canonizes only her own. The pope is not likely 
to canonize a Protestant — any one not of his own commu- 
nion ; and therefore, he may very easily say that all the 
saints are members of his church. 

Our hearers smiled at this, and seemed to feel it was 
answer enough to the argument. 

There was no more said by my opponent, and I proceeded 
to argue that he had given no sufficient grounds for his 
assertion, that the church of Rome alone had a right to 
regard herself as the cc one holy church." The Protestant 
churches could all claim the epithet with as good a reason, 
if the question was to be decided by holiness of doctrine — 
holiness of sacraments — or holiness of members. 

But, said one of those present, a church that came from 
Martin Luther and Henry VIII., could not be a holy 
church ; for one broke his vows and was a perjured man, 
E 2 



76 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



and the other was a man of lust who murdered his wives. 
They were a queer sort of saints. 

I replied to this man, that Martin Luther was a Roman 
Catholic priest or monk — that he had taken the usual vows 
against marrying — that he lived at a time when priests and 
monks, though they did not marry wives of their own, 
were disgracefully intimate with the w T ives. of other men — 
that Martin Luther saw this with his own eyes, and knew 
it was the common practice of his brother priests and 
monks, and thought it better that they should have wives 
— honestly have wives of their own than dishonestly live 
with the wives of "other men — that thinking this he resolved 
to marry, and so married one who had been a nun, and who 
preferred living honestly and modestly as his lawful wife, 
to living dishonestly and immodestly, as did too many of 
her sister-nuns. And, I added, as for Henry VIII., it is 
not for me or any Protestant to defend him. He was born 
of Roman Catholic parents — baptized in the church of 
Rome — educated as a Roman Catholic — ascended the throne 
as a member of the church of Rome — wrote a book in 
support of the seven sacraments, and in it abused Martin 
Luther to the utmost — put Protestants to death for not be- 
lieving transubstantiation — died, leaving money in his will 
for masses for his soul in purgatory. The wretched man 
was a Roman Catholic born, bred, educated ; — and quarrelled 
only with Rome on the subject of the pope's authority. He 
broke with the pope on the subject of his authority, but 
always held the doctrines of the church of Rome. What- 
ever were his faults, they were the faults of his Roman 
Catholic education. 

But have you ever heard of some of the popes of the 



THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH. 



77 



Church of Rome ? The world has never in all the times 
of heathenism known such monsters of vice, filthiness, 
savageness, and atrocity, as some of them. There was no 
sin that could be named that was not perpetrated by some 
of them. 

O, but, exclaimed our friend, we don't look upon the 
popes personally as infallible. They may have been very 
bad men, as private men, and yet as the head of the church 
they may have been infallible. 

I said the question was not as to their infallibility, but 
if it be objected against Protestants, that Martin Luther 
married a nun, and that Henry VIII. was a monster of 
crime, I answer that there were twenty popes incomparably 
worse in all vice and immorality, and in the perpetration of 
the most bloody and atrocious crimes. But, I added, 
neither church is to be judged by the bad men that may be 
found within them. They must be tried by the word of 
God. The great question for our churches is, whether 
they hold the holy doctrines and practice, the holy dis- 
cipline taught in the holy word of our holy God — whether 
they teach the people holiness of doctrine and holiness of 
practice ; and so teach them that the people receive holy 
doctrines, and carry out holy practice in their lives. This 
is the great question for us all, and I said I would confi- 
dently appeal to all present whether they did not think the 
Protestant clergy in their neighbourhood at least as holy, 
as religious, as full of good works, and charity among the 
poor, as any of the Roman Catholic clergy. And whether 
they did not find that their Protestant neighbours were 
quite as holy and as moral and ready to do good to all 
around them, as any of their Roman Catholic neighbours ? 



78 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



With one voice they acknowledged this. 

I said, therefore, that I could not see wherein the church 
of Rome was more holy than the church of England. And 
that I could not make out why the church of England had 
not as much right as the church of Rome to be called 
" the Holy Church." I was sure of this, I added, that 
God's holy word — God's Holy Scriptures are the fountain 
of all holy knowledge ; and that so long as we keep close to 
them, and read, and study, and love, and conform our 
hearts, and minds, and lives to them, praying for the light 
and teaching, and grace of the Holy Spirit, we shall be 
members of that church of which God is the Father, and 
Jesus Christ the Saviour, and the Holy Ghost the Sanc- 
tifier. 

There was little else said on this occasion, and I felt 
that the confidence of the parties present was much shaken 
as to the person who acted as their spokesman. He had 
led them to expect a wonderful triumph over me. He left 
my presence much humbled. 



THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 



"WHETHER THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND BE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 

A BRANCH OF IT MEANING OF THE TERMS, CHURCH AND CATHO- 
LIC APPLICATION OF THE NAME TO THE CHURCH OF ROME 

MEANING OF THE WORDS IN THE CREED THE INVISIBLE AS DIS- 
TINCT FROM THE VISIBLE CHURCH THE GRADUAL DECAY AND 

DIMINUTION OF THE CHURCH OF ROME COMPARISON OF NUM- 
BERS. 

In the times of much controversy in Ireland, it was not 
uncommon for invitations, somewhat in the form of chal- 
lenges to public discussion, to pass between the opponent 
churches ; or, more correctly expressing it, between the 
more active and zealous partizans of Romanism and Protes- 
tantism. 

However strange such a mode of procedure may appear 
to some minds, it had great attractions, because great 
suitableness for that phase of mind peculiar to the popula- 
tion of Ireland. The clergy who took an active lead in 
controversy were universally the favourites of the people. 
They always regarded the challenger as a bold, brave, 
earnest and sincere man — as one who did not fear to let 
the light in upon his principles or practices. And on the 
other hand, whenever a challenge was refused without good 



80 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



and valid cause in the estimation of the people, the indivi- 
dual fell invariably in public esteem, as one who was unable 
to defend his principles, or who was afraid to have his prac- 
tices exposed. It was a strange state of things. 

I undertook the charge of a parish for a few weeks for a 
brother curate who was in weak health. The Roman 
Catholic Priest was supposed to be a bold, fearless and able 
man, who was constantly from the altar denouncing the 
Protestant clergy and Protestant people, pouring ridicule 
in unsparing measure upon their religion, challenging by 
name the weak and consumptive, and indeed dying man, 
who was curate of the Parish, and who, whatever was his 
will, was wholly without the physical strength requisite for 
such a strife. 

I was fully aware of the proceedings of this polemical 
priest, and of the sort of moral influence he had obtained 
over the people by his fearless bearing. I watched for the 
opportunity to diminish it ; but, before I could possibly 
take any step in the affair, I was startled by the visit of 
five Roman Catholics, all respectable peasants of the place, 
who announced themselves as deputed by a large number of 
their co-religionists, to request me to accept the challenge 
of their priest ; expressing themselves as anxious for inquiry, 
and prepared to bear me through it. I felt that my position 
was a strange one, considering the parties who made the 
request. And being then young, zealous, ardent, and con- 
fident in the cause I had to defend, I acceded, perhaps, 
rather hastily to the request. 

The very same evening the priest delivered a controver- 
sial lecture in the parish chapel against the doctrines of the 
Protestants ; and again, as on former occasions, threw 



THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 81 



down a challenge to all Protestant clergymen to defend 
their church against him ; stating that he would not go 
to public meetings, but would there, in that very chapel, 
receive any Protestant clergyman and discuss the subject 
before his whole congregation. 

This challenge causing no slight sensation in the neigh- 
bourhood, was immediately communicated to me, by the 
same parties. I declared my readiness to accept it, and only 
waited till the priest should name the subject for discussion. 
On the following week he challenged me from the altar, to 
prove the Church of England to be the "holy Catholic 
Church," mentioned in the Apostles' creed. I replied to 
the deputation who informed me of this, that I could not 
undertake to prove her to be " the holy Catholic Church,' 5 
because I could not prove that a part was the whole ; but 
that I would undertake to prove that it was a part, a por- 
tion, a branch of " the holy Catholic Church." I pointed 
out to them the reason of this distinction, as I could not 
prove that any particular church, was the universal church 
— the Church of Christ. They were perfectly satisfied with 
this, which they seemed fully to understand ; and I therefore 
declared my intention of attending at the Roman Catholic 
chapel on the next evening of lecture, and entering on the 
discussion, if they and their priest were so disposed. 

I went there at the usual hour, accompanied by another 
clergyman. As I approached the chapel, the former depu- 
tation, accompanied by a crowd of other Roman Catholics, 
came forward to meet and receive me, and taking me 
bodily into their centre, so as that none but themselves 
could touch me, they entered. The whole congregation, 
who were all standing and listening to the controversial 
E 5 



82 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



lecture of their priest, instantly divided, making an open 
way for the deputation and myself, till I was safely depo- 
sited, face to face with the priest, at the foot of the altar. 
That the priest was taken by surprise, was very apparent. 
He had never expected such a scene. He continued his 
address for a short time, and then in a few confused, and 
hurried sentences concluded his lecture, and was with- 
drawing to the vestry — perhaps to prepare for the coming 
discussion. According to an arrangement, already made 
with the deputation, I immediately placed in the hands of 
the priest, as he was withdrawing, a letter, — a written ac- 
ceptance of his proposal, and expressing my willingness to 
enter on the discussion at that moment before the congre- 
gation- The expectation and excitement of the people was 
intense, as they saw him reading my letter, and as they 
waited for the discussion which to them seemed inevitable, 
after all his previous challenges. He read the letter care- 
fully, and slowly folded it up, — said with a loud voice, that 
the church of Rome was *' the holy catholic church," — that 
they were already in possession of the church, and did not 
need any further enquiry or search after it, — for that they 
need not search for what they had already found ! And 
saying this, he instantly left the altar, and withdrew to the 
vestry. 

I shall never forget the scene at this moment. The deep 
disappointment of the people — the strong resentment at 
what they called his fears — the bold request of many that 
I would take his place at the altar, and address them — and 
above all the excited and stormy character of the disordered 
congregation, were almost appalling. I felt unnerved at 
the moment, and almost regretted having gone so far, till 



THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 83 



higher thoughts came to my aid, and I felt that He, whom I 
desired to serve, could sustain me, — and He did both counsel 
and sustain me, It flashed across my mind that if I accepted 
the invitation of the people, and addressed them in that 
place, it would be putting myself into the power of the law, 
which would be most unwise ; I therefore declined, but 
added to those about me that I would withdraw from the 
chapel and address them outside. We withdrew, and being 
accompanied by about one third of the congregation, we 
entered a large school-house, and there I addressed at some 
length, a deeply attentive congregation of several hundreds 
of Roman Catholics. 

The Priest never again delivered a challenge, or even 
another lecture against the Protestant church ! 

This circumstance led to the visits of many persons, 
anxious for information on certain questions of controversy. 

It is of vast importance to the right conduct of our con- 
troversy with Rome, that we be very careful as to our state- 
ments. That the church of England is a part or branch of 
the church of Christ, is a most certain truth. That she is 
the church of Christ is as certainly an untruth. This dis- 
tinction is very obvious, and yet from a neglect of this dis- 
tinction among Protestants, they have fallen into inextricable 
difficulties. And the Romanists know this, and therefore 
constantly ask of us to prove that our church is the church 
of Christ. The answer on all such occasions, should be, 
that we would undertake to prove our national and particular 
church to be, not the church of Christ, but a church of 
Christ, as being a part or branch, — a particular church 
among the many, the aggregate of which constitutes the one 
Catholic or universal church. 



84 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



In a discussion on this subject, in which I was at this time 
engaged in private, it was urged by my opponent that the 
church of Rome had extended through all time, and had 
spread over all nations, — that in this respect she had far 
exceeded all other churches, which were of more modern 
growth, and of more limited and merely local extent, — that 
for antiquity and extent no other church can hold com- 
parison with her, — and that as she alone can make any 
claim to be Catholic, that is, universal, so she alone is " the 
Catholic church " of the creeds. 

The answer I have ever found most effectual to this, is a 
fair explanation of the terms. I have therefore laid down 
two things. 

First: I have called to mind that the word "church," 
as it occurs in Holy Scripture, simply means an assembly or 
congregation, even a civil or political assembly, as in Acts 
xix. 39, and 41, when it was merely a civil meeting : — that 
it is sometimes applied to the little congregation of Chris- 
tians assembled in a private house, as in Col. iv. 15 : some- 
times to the larger congregations of Christian persons 
assembled in one town or city, as in Rom. xvi. 1 ; sometimes 
to the aggregate of the several congregations, that may be 
found in any province or country; as in 1 Cor. xvi. 1. And 
sometimes it is applied to the aggregate of all these particu- 
lar churches of Christ, as constituting the church of God, — 
the church of the redeemed, — " the church militant here on 
earth," while at other times it has a wider range, embracing 
both the church below, and the Church above, that is, the 
universal or Catholic church of Christ, " the general assem- 
bly and church of the first-born, whose names are written in 
Heaven," as Heb. xii. 23. 



THE CATHOLICITY OP THE CHURCH. 85 



Secondly, I have endeavoured to settle well and clearly, 
the meaning of the phrase " the catholic church." The 
word " catholic" signifies "all" or "whole" or "univer- 
sal." So that it is clear, that " the catholic church" does 
not mean, merely a particular church, assembled in any pri- 
vate house, nor merely a particular church, assembling in 
any special town or city, nor merely any aggregate of 
churches, collected in any one country, or province, or na- 
tion. It does not mean any particular church or churches, 
but " all," the " whole," or " universal," of the churches 
of Christ, taken in the aggregate or collective aspect. 

The necessary consequence of this, as I have endeavoured 
to press on my opponents, is, that if the church of England 
called herself " the catholic church," it would be an un- 
warrantable assumption in making herself the whole, uni- 
versal church, and therefore, when persons talk of an Anglo- 
catholic church, that is of an English universal church, 
they only betray their own inaccuracy ; <f knowing neither 
what they say nor whereof they affirm;" unless they merely 
mean a particular church in union with all the other 
churches. And it is precisely the same with the church of 
Rome. When she calls herself " the catholic church," it 
is an assumption as unwarrantable as it is inconsistent ; for 
as her very name implies, she is only a local or national 
church, a particular church, and therefore, cannot possibly 
he the universal church, unless shemerely means that she is in 
connection with all the other churches. And though from 
the unwillingness among us to quarrel about names, we 
generally allow her to call herself any names she pleases, 
yet this name by which she is so generally called, — " the 



86 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Roman Catholic church/' is really tantamount to calling her 
" the particular universal church." 

It is often argued by the advocates of the church of 
Rome, that the phrase of the creed, " I believe in the holy 
Catholic church " must have some more definite application 
— application to some one visible and outward church, which 
is universal or catholic ; and they can recognise none wor- 
thy of the name but the church of Rome. The answer to 
this is, that when we employ these words in the creed, and 
say that we believe there is a Catholic church, we are bound 
to say clearly and distinctly what we believe. As we have 
already settled clearly, that it is not a belief in any one 
local, national, particular church, neither the Greek church, 
nor the Roman church, nor the Scotch church, nor the 
English church ; so we must next settle as clearly, and have 
it closely settled in our minds, what we do believe. 

In order to do this, we must be careful; — we cannot be too 
careful, for it is the key to the whole subject— to remember 
that the words occur in the creed, and that a creed, as the 
word means, is a series of truths or things in which you 
believe. They are not things which you see, but things 
which you see not — not things visible, but things invisible. 
It is only in things unseen and invisible we are said to be- 
lieve, for things visible or seen we are said to see and know, 
and not merely to believe in them. If therefore you exa- 
mine the articles of the creed, you will at once perceive, 
that they all are things which we have not seen and cannot 
see, being things unseen and invisible. " I believe in God," 
He is invisible; "the maker of heaven and earth;" — He was 
unseen of us when he made it. " And in Jesus Christ his 



THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 87 



only Son," — we have not seen him, and vet we believe in 
him, — and so on with every other article separately. They 
all are declarations as to what we have not seen, but still we 
believe. " I believe in the Holy Ghost," we see him not ; 
" The communion of saints," we see not the saints above, 
and we know not who are the saints even here below ; " the 
forgiveness of sins " is a privilege invisible, and can only 
be believed and felt ; " the resurrection of the body " is that 
which we have never seen and yet we believe it shall be ; 
"and the life everlasting" is likewise a thing unseen and 
invisible now, but one which we believe and expect. Thus 
all the articles concern unseen and invisible things. And 
inasmuch as " the Catholic church " is placed in the midst 
of those articles, so it evidently means that unseen and in- 
visible body of redeemed and saved souls, both of the 
church above, and of the church below, which is the true 
church of Jesus Christ ; it is that which we usually speak of, 
as the spiritual and invisible church. It cannot mean that 
which is called the " visible church," the body of baptized 
and professing christians whom we see, and can easily see, 
because they are visible. It cannot possibly be this, for as 
the whole creed embodies only those things which are 
unseen and invisible to us now, so it cannot on any honest 
system of interpretation be applied to any or to all the 
seen and visible churches on earth. The article of the 
creed, therefore, must mean a belief in that body of faithful 
ones, who are unseen, and unknown of human eye, but 
who are seen and known of the Saviour : "The Lord know- 
eth them that are his," and who constitute " the general 
assembly and church of the first-born, whose names are 
written in heaven." Thus the church triumphant above 



88 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



and the church still militant on earth — these, whose indi- 
vidual members are unseen and unknown by us, are the 
" Catholic church." 

T have found this explanation often satisfactory to en- 
quiring minds. And it has been frequently acknowledged 
to me that it resolved what had long been a considerable 
difficulty. But there is a great variety of minds, and very 
often I have met with opponents whom nothing could 
satisfy. And who, studying Milner's 'End of Controversy' 
much more than the Holy Scriptures, go on to argue that 
the members of the church of Rome are always called 
Catholics, and their church is always called the Catholic 
church even by Protestants themselves ; and that as we 
traverse our streets, this designation is so well and univer- 
sally known that all who ask for the "Catholic" church 
would at once be directed to the Roman church. 

The answer I have usually made to this, is, that there is 
some truth in this, but all that is true in it has arisen out 
of our unwillingness to quarrel about words or names. We 
feel that they are not Catholics, and ought not to be called 
Catholics ; but if we call them Romanists, as belonging to 
the church of Rome, they take offence and are angry with 
us. If we call them Papists, as followers of the papacy, 
they again take offence and are still more angry with us. 
And thus, from our kindly and Christian unwillingness to 
give offence, we prefer calling them by a name, which yet 
we feel to be inappropriate, inaccurate, and objectionable. 
We call them Catholics, simply to avoid giving them offence, 
and then they take advantage of this and argue that we 
recognize them as Catholics ! This is but a poor return for 
our kindness and unwillingness to offend them. 



THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 89 



I have found this frequently an adequate answer to per- 
sons who have any generosity of sentiment, and who are 
not arguing merely as partizans, prepared to deny every- 
thing and to assert anything. But, simple as the answer 
is, it is surprising how many are influenced by the argu- 
ment. 

But how explain the fact — it forms an important argu- 
ment in the pages of Milner — that as we traverse our 
streets and ask for the Catholic church, we are sure to be 
directed by every one to the Roman church ? 

I have been surprised at times at the confidence with 
which some — indeed many persons — have argued thus. 
And I have answered it by a parallel, saying — If any man, 
traversing our streets or wandering in the fields, ask for 
the church, he will be sure to be directed to the Protestant 
church of the parish. This would be invariably the same. 
And thus I have argued, that if on asking for the Catholic 
church, one is directed to the Roman church, and this is to 
be held a proof that the church of Rome is Catholic ; then 
the other fact, namely, that if, on inquiring for the church, 
one is always directed to the Protestant church, it must as 
fairly be deemed a proof that the church of England is the 
church of Christ. The truth is, that such a process of rea- 
soning on either side is trifling. 

The argument however, that more than all else has been 
urged upon me is, that the church of Rome was universal, 
as the word " Catholic " implies — that she was universal 
through all past centuries and all present countries, and is 
thus the Catholic or universal church. 

The answer I gave to this is as follows — 

The church of Rome never was universal, and certainly 



90 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



is not now universal ; and every century sees her shorn of 
some of her provinces, so as that she is steadily and con- 
stantly losing her relative position. If ever, at any period 
of history, she had been universal, it is a certain fact that 
she is now less able to claim that epithet than at any 
former epoch. In the first place she does not keep pace 
with the steady growth of population ; inasmuch as the 
population of the old countries where she prevailed, as 
Italy, Spain, France, Austria, has not increased in the same 
proportion as those countries wherein Protestantism pre- 
vails, as in Prussia, England, and America. In the next 
place, the stream of emigration, at this moment extending 
population over the world, is mainly bearing on its surface 
the Anglo-Saxon institutions, principles, and religion, which 
will thus be broad-cast over the whole of the new world. 
America, India, Australia, are illustrations of this. 

But we can say even more than this. Assuming her 
own statement as a basis of argument, namely, that the 
church of Rome was universal; she must acknowledge and 
does acknowledge two great defalcations — two gigantic 
secessions from her pale — two bodies of such vast magni- 
tude as that the total of such seceders or separatists is 
more numerous than all that have remained to her; so that 
assuming that she once was universal, as she asserts, she 
can now make no claim whatever to that title. The two 
great sections of the Christian family to which I here refer, 
are the Greek or Eastern churches, and the Protestant or 
Western churches. Russia, Turkey, Greece, and all Asia 
have rejected her claims and denied her authority: Sweden, 
Norway, Denmark, Holland, one half of Germany, with 
England and North America, have all rejected her authority. 



THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 



91 



The church of Rome pronounces the former to be a schis- 
matic separation ; and the latter to be a heretical secession. 
The former, at whatever date it may be supposed to have 
commenced, was certainly consummated in the fifteenth 
century : while the latter commenced in the sixteenth cen- 
tury, and is still extending its influence. All this is her 
own statement, and assuming all this to be true, the 
church of Rome can no longer be regarded as universal. 
The total number of professing Christians in the world is, 
as accurately as can be estimated, 305 millions. By the 
Eastern separation she has lost seventy-seven millions of 
souls, that being the estimated numbers of the Greek or 
Eastern churches at the present day. By the Western 
secession she has lost ninety-five millions of souls, for such 
is the estimated number of the Protestants of Europe and 
America at present. By these two therefore combined, she 
has lost one hundred and seventy-two millions of Christians, 
while she retains all over the world only one hundred 
and thirty-three millions within her pale. Even in the old 
countries of Europe, according to her own calculations, she 
is now in a very decided minority. By the last census 
taken in the several states of Europe, the whole population 
in 1851 was 256,041,920 ; and according to the last state- 
ment published, in behalf of the church of Rome, (pub- 
lished by Battersby, in 1851) she claims of these only 
124,993,961, that is, less than one half! This is her own 
claim. It ought to have been only 117 millions on an 
accurate calculation. And thus, although as a single com- 
munion, she has a larger number of members than any 
other Church, — yet, taking the wide field of Christendom 
as a whole — taking the professing family and visible church 



92 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



of Christ as a whole — she is, at this moment, in a very 
decided minority. And the progress of events give sig- 
nificant augury that ere long, she shall have still less pre- 
tensions even to this fiction of a name, for every year she 
becomes still less "universal" or "Catholic." The wave 
is breaking upon her old embankments, and one by one 
they are shaken, sink down, and are engulphed and carried 
away for ever. 

It is easy to imagine this claim in mediaeval times, when 
the church of Rome was in the fulness of her meridian 
splendour and power ; there was then no other church in 
Europe that could resist her effectually. And yet in Eng- 
land, and in France, and in Spain, the struggle was main- 
tained with a wonderful perseverance, and though stricken 
down, its cries stifled and its freedom chained, yet every 
now and then it shook off its oppressor — bravely struggled 
on for a little while, and then again sunk into the silence of 
its prison-house. Throughout those ages, the church of 
Rome could lift her head like the palm-tree, and boast her- 
self that she stood alone in the world, not indeed the loving 
mother, but the powerful mistress of the other churches. 
But all this has passed away. In the East, and in the 
West, the national and particular churches of Christendom 
have at last risen in their strength and fulfilled their resur- 
rection, and shivered to atoms the chains of their bondage, 
and rent the walls of their prison-house, so that now they 
are more numerous than their former oppressor. And, not 
content with their own emancipation, the Protestant churches 
are spoiling her of her prey, and the hundreds of converts 
in beautiful Italy, the thousands of down -stricken Ireland, 
and the millions of free-hearted America, are given to the 



THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 93 



faithful, and loving, and true-hearted labors and prayers 
of the Protestant churches. The universality or Catholicity 
of the church of Rome is day by day becoming et fine by 
degrees and elegantly less," and is destined erelong to live 
only in the memories of the past. 



APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 



THE CLAIM OF THE CHURCH OF ROME AS APOSTOLICAL MEANING 

OF THE TERM FOUNDED BY AN APOSTLE OR IN APOSTOLIC TIMES 

USELESSNESS OF THIS THE FATE OF MANY SUCH CHURCHES 

CONFORMITY WITH THE TEACHING OF APOSTLES — HOW THIS IS 

ASCERTAINABLE THE HOLY SCRIPTURES THE APOSTOLICAL 

SUCCESSION CLAIMED ALIKE BY ALL CHURCHES SUCCESSION 

IN THE PRESBYTERY OR IN THE EPISCOPACY. 

Among my Roman Catholic parishioners was a man, ad- 
vanced in life, who had married a Protestant much younger 
than himself. They lived very happily together, and had 
several children. As was very usual in such cases of mixed 
marriages, all the children were baptized by the Roman 
Catholic priest ; but after my speaking to them on the sub- 
ject, they were all sent as scholars to my school, and as 
attendants at my church. 

I have always observed in the case of such mixed mar- 
riages that the children are professed as Roman Catholics, 
or as Protestants, according to the character of the Protes- 
tant clergyman of the parish. If he is careless, indifferent, 
inattentive, then the natural feeling of the Roman Catholic 
parent, combined with the silent influence of the masses 
of the neighbouring population, at once consigns the chil- 



APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 95 



dren to the church of Rome. There is no opposing influ- 
ence to counteract this, unless the Protestant clergyman 
influences the Protestant parent. On the other hand, if 
the Protestant clergyman is a good, and zealous, and at- 
tentive man — if he visits his people and enters into conver- 
sation on their little family affairs, and shews an interest in 
their well-being, both for time and for eternity, he will 
obtain an influence over the Roman Catholic parent, through 
his interest taken in the children, as well as give a moral 
support to the wishes of the Protestant parent. In such 
cases the children will be freely given to him by both parents. 
I have had large experience in this matter, and never knew 
an instance in which I did not secure the children of mixed 
marriages, as pupils in the Protestant school, and attendants 
at the Protestant church. If there be a want of success 
in this matter, it is generally the fault of the clergyman 
himself. 

I have said that the wife of this Roman Catholic pa- 
rishioner was a Protestant. She was such by birth and 
education; but, as her husband usually attended the Roman 
Catholic service, she remained at home to mind the house 
and take charge of the children. Her inability thus to 
attend church was manifest, and although on my speaking 
to her husband on the subject, he, as a sensible and rea- 
sonable man, was willing to do anything that I could 
suggest with reason, yet the care of the little children 
placed a great obstacle in the way. I therefore said to 
him one day, that as his wife could not come to the church, 
so the church must come to his wife. I said I would come 
and pray, and read, and preach at his house. He most 
readily accepted my offer, and thus I was enabled to esta- 



96 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



blish a cottage lecture on a small scale in his house, where 
several neighbouring families, both Protestants and Roman- 
ists, regularly attended. 

One thing naturally led to another. The reading of the 
scriptures, and my expositions of them, always extempora- 
neous as to the manner of delivery, and always directed to 
the great truths of the gospel, and to the necessity of a real 
and practical religiousness of life, led to many questions and 
answers, not only on matters of great Christian moment in 
general, but also on points more or less controverted between 
the churches. These questions came from Romanists and 
Protestants alike. The man himself after some time seemed 
much drawn to the gospel, and sought private conversation 
with me. He shewed a great depth of feeling at times. He 
was evidently thinking of leaving the church of Rome. He 
saw that many others had openly done so, and he seemed 
not indisposed to follow their example. 

One day we conversed for a long time on the subject of 
the true church. Among other points he spoke much 
about the apostolicity of the church of Rome — that she was 
apostolical. 

I therefore asked him what he meant by the word, and 
what argument he drew from it. 

He said that when he called the church of Rome an apos- 
tolical church, he meant that she was as old as the apostles, 
— that she was founded in the days of the apostles, — that 
she had received the gospel from the mouths of the apostles, 
— and thus, having been founded by the blessed apostle 
Peter, the first bishop and pope of Rome, she must be an 
apostolical church. 

I asked him what argument he meant to found on this ? 



APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 



97 



I said that T was, in some measure, not disposed to deny 
it ; but wished to know what he intended to found on it. 

He said it proved the church of Rome to be old, — an old 
church, — the oldest of all churches. 

I then told him that if his argument was that the church 
of Rome was an old church, I would at once admit it, for it 
was a very certain truth ; and that as founded by an apostle 
and in the days of the apostles, she may most truly be called 
an apostolical church. I told him that — 

In this sense we see no objection whatever to call the 
church of Rome an apostolic church, — she was founded in 
the days of the apostles, and probably by some of the apos- 
tles themselves. We may perhaps not believe what she says 
about her being founded by Peter, and that he was her first 
bishop or pope, but we freely admit her to have been founded 
in the days of the apostles, for the fact is stated in the Holy 
Scriptures. But, I added, there are other churches equally 
apostolical; and, although she may claim this epithet in this 
sense, yet she cannot claim it exclusively. If she is an apos- 
tolical church she is only one among many, which are equally 
apostolical. We read in the Holy Scriptures of the church 
at Jerusalem, of the church at Antioch, of the churches of 
Corinth, of Galatia, Laodicea, Ephesus ; of the churches of 
Judea, Samaria, Macedonia, Achaia; and all these are apos- 
tolical churches in this sense, for they were all founded by 
apostles ; and ancient history records, that the gospel was 
preached in these islands in apostolic times, and as some 
historians state, even by the apostle Paul himself; so that we 
see no exclusive right to this appellation on the part of the 
church of Rome. Nor, I continued, can she derive any 
peculiar advantage from it ; for, as one of the Articles of the 

F 



98 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Church of England says, " as the church of Jerusalem, 
Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the church of 
Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of 
ceremonies, but also in matters of faith." Here are three 
of the apostolical churches ; that of Jerusalem, founded by 
all the apostles, is now Apostate and Mahometan ; that 
of Antioch, founded by Peter, is now Apostate and Ma- 
hometan ; that of Alexandria founded by Mark, is now 
Apostate and Mahometan. All the seven churches of Asia, 
all apostolical as they were, are now separated as much as 
ourselves, from the church of Rome, so that I see not what 
the church of Rome can gain, by calling herself apostolical 
in this sense of having been founded by an apostle. It has 
not secured other apostolical churches from error like that of 
the Greek churches; or from apostacy like that of the Asiatic 
churches. The church of Rome acknowledges this herself. 
I do not know, therefore, what she gains by this argument. 

He saw this very clearly, and said, that he felt, and for a 
long time, had felt, that for a church to be old and aposto- 
lical, was a very good thing, but that it was not everything; 
and that at all events it did not keep her from falling; The 
church of Jerusalem, where the blessed Saviour himself 
taught and preached, and where St. Peter himself first 
preached on the day of Pentecost. — was she not the first 
and oldest and most apostolical of all churches ? And yet 
— God's holy will be done !• — it is now gone — gone ! He 
uttered this in a very impressive and solemn tone, and 
then added, — It is plain, that the oldest and most aposto- 
lical churches may fall ; Jerusalem has fallen, Rome may 
fall, and why — he asked in a thoughtful way, — Why, then, 
is the church called apostolic in the creed ? 



APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 



99 



I said, in reply to this, that whatever was the meaning 
and intention of the epithet, it was evident it could not 
mean or intend merely that a church was founded by an 
apostle, or in the apostolic times ; because, if that was the 
meaning and intention, then there could be no true and 
apostolical church, but those which were founded in the 
very earliest ages. Now America was unknown — undisco- 
vered in the apostolic times, and yet she has now many 
millions of souls, living and dying in the true faith of Jesus 
Christ, and she has thus a true and apostolic church within 
her bosom, although not founded by the apostles, or in the 
apostolic times. The words in the creed must mean some- 
thing else. 

He here broke in, saying, that there could be no doubt 
on that point, for that the church of Ireland was not founded 
in the apostles' times. It was founded, he had read, by the 
blessed St. Patrick in the fourth century. All the apostles 
were dead and gone to glory, long before that time : and 
therefore as you say of the church of America, neither 
could the church of Ireland be apostolical, if that was the 
meaning of the epithets in the creed. 

It was evident my old friend was well-pleased at his own 
cleverness, in adducing so very apt and appropriate an illus- 
tration, as the recent foundation of the Irish Church. ' And 
as I saw he fully understood my objection so far, I pro- 
ceeded to state what seemed to me the true purport of the 
word in the creed. 

I reminded him that there was another and very different 
meaning for the word; — that to say a church was scriptural, 
meant, that its doctrines were in agreement with the Scrip- 
tures ; or to say that a church was Roman Catholic, meant, 
F 2 



100 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



that its doctrines were in accordance with the Roman Catho- 
lic church ; and in precisely the same way, when it is said 
that the church is apostolical, it is meant, that its doctrines 
are in agreement with the doctrines of the apostles. 

He seemed fully to receive this, and be satisfied with it. 

I continued to say that we were to enquire, — and it was 
the grand subject of enquiry — whether the Eoman churches, 
or the Protestant churches, had most claim to be called 
apostolical in this sense. 

This — in order to a fair and candid enquiry, — requires us 
first to determine the way in which such enquiry or exa- 
mination is to be ascertained. How are we to ascertain 
— how are we best to test the claim to be in accordance 
with the apostles ? 

It is by comparing the doctrine and discipline of the 
churches, whether Roman or Protestant, with the wri- 
tings of the apostles. I argued thus : — If we wish to 
ascertain the opinions of Luther and Melancthon and 
Zuinglius and Calvin, and the continental reformers of the 
1 6th century, our most fair, candid and reasonable course, 
will be, to open their writings, and learn thus from them- 
selves their own opinions. This is infinitely better than to 
take them at second-hand. Again, if we desire to learn the 
judgment of Cranmer, and Latimer, and Ridley, and Hooper, 
and Jewell, and the other Reformers of England of the 16th 
century, is it not the true and only just and reasonable 
course to open their writings, and thus learn from them- 
selves, not from second-hand sources, but from themselves, 
their own opinions. Again, if we want to ascertain the 
mind of the non-conformists of the 1 7th century; of Baxter, 
and Howe, and Calamy, and Manton; there seems to be no 



APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 



101 



course so just, and fair, and right as going direct to their 
writings and so learning from themselves, and at not second- 
hand, the opinions they entertained. On the very same 
principle, I argued, that if our object be to learn the mind, 
the opinion, the doctrine and discipline of the Apostles, 
with the view to ascertain whether or not the doctrines 
and discipline of the church be in accordance with them — if 
our object be to ascertain whether the church of Rome, or 
the church of England — be apostolical, in this sense of the 
word, — then we must, if we would be fair, and just, and 
reasonable, come to the writings of the apostles, and thus 
bring all to the test of the New Testament Scriptures. 

He remarked that that would bring it, in the end, to the 
Protestant principle of trying everything by the Holy 
Scriptures ; and he added thoughtfully, that he was sure 
it was after all the right way. He paused, and after a few 
moments said, that he had read somewhere that the word 
" apostolical" sometimes meant the succession of the clergy 
of the church regularly and without break, like the links 
of a chain so to speak, from the apostles to the present 
time ; that is, that every single clergyman was ordained by 
the laying-on of the hands of those who were previously 
ordained in the same way, and whose ordainers were them- 
selves previously ordained in the same way by the laying- 
on of hands. " And that thus they could trace every one of 
the clergy regularly to the times of the apostles. He 
added, that among the priests of the church of Rome, he 
had often heard this explanation — that he did not himself 
think much of it — but wished to know my opinion. His own 
opinion, he at once avowed, was, that every church should 
be tried by the Word of God — by the Holy Scriptures. 



102 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



To this, I replied, that I fully agreed with him, that 
after all, the only safe and certain test or standard of truth 
was the Holy Scriptures; and that the more they were read 
in faith, and prayer, and humility, the more men would be 
led to make them the only test or standard. This was the 
invariable result with those who knew and loved them. 

He again asked me, what I thought of the succession 
from the apostles. 

I answered this, by saying that every church in Christen- 
dom had this sort of succession from the apostles. In the 
church of Rome, in the churches of Greece, in the Protes- 
tant churches, they all claim the same succession, that is, 
all their clergy are ordained by clergy who were themselves 
ordained before them ; and they ordained again by others 
before them, and so on to the times of the apostles. 

He stated that he had heard this before, especially of 
the Protestant churches of England and Ireland. At the 
Reformation, the archbishops, and bishops, and priests, 
changed their doctrines, they were not changed themselves, 
that is, they were not turned out, and unordained men put 
in their places. He had heard that the mass-book was 
turned out, and the common-prayer-book was brought in, 
but that the clergy were not changed. They gave up Ro- 
manism, and they took up Protestantism. They changed 
their religion, but were not changed themselves. They did 
not resign their parishes. 

I stated, that such was the true view of the facts, for 
that Cranmer, and Latimer, and Ridley, and Hooper, and the 
rest of them, were all archbishops, and bishops, and priests, 
belonged to the church of Rome, that is, held communion 
with her. And if they had the succession of orders from 



APOSTOLICITY OP THE CHURCH. 



103 



the apostles, before their conversion, they must have had 
it after their conversion. 

He then asked, whether the same was true of the Pres- 
byterian ministers of the church of Scotland, and of the 
Dissenters of England, and Ireland. Had they this suc- 
cession ? 

Most certainly, was my reply. In the former country — 
Scotland — the Romish priests became Protestant ministers ; 
so that these Protestant ministers had this apostolic suc- 
cession as much after conversion as before ; and to this 
day they never recognize any man as an ordained minister, 
unless he has been ordained by others who were themselves 
ordained ministers before them. And so too with the 
Dissenters or Nonconformists. Whenever any one of 
them is to be ordained, there is a meeting of the congrega- 
tion, and some older ministers attend ; and with prayer, 
those senior ministers, who were themselves so ordained 
before, lay hands, after the apostles' example, upon the 
young candidate, and thus set him apart for the sacred 
office of the ministry. They thus receive the outward 
ordination to the ministry from those who were ministers 
before them, and so on in successive generations to the 
time of the Reformation, and so on to the age of the 
apostles. And thus this apostolical succession, of which 
the church of Rome boasts so much, belongs to all the 
other churches likewise — is as much the privilege of all our 
Episcopalian and Presbyterian — of all our conforming and 
nonconforming churches, as of the church of Rome. 

He seemed very much struck with this view of the sub- 
ject. It was new to him ; and he said, that after all that 
men might say on the subject, it seemed to him that they 



104 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



must in the end come to the Holy Scriptures. He said 
that this kind of apostolicity could not serve the church of 
Rome. If she did not give it up, he could not help it, 
for he felt he must give it up for ever. 

I then took occasion to tell him, that the advocates of 
the church of Rome were perfectly well aware of all this ; 
and that all the Protestant churches possessed this kind of 
apostolical succession as well as herself. And therefore, 
she has invented another kind of succession : she says that 
apostolical succession does not mean the regular succession 
of clergy in general, but only the regular succession of 
bishops. 

And what arguments, he asked warmly, have they for 
that ? At all events, you have bishops and a succession of 
bishops in the church of England, but what proof have 
they for saying it is only a succession of bishops ? It is 
not with the bishops that we, the people, have to do ; it is 
with the priests that we are concerned. Have they any- 
thing in the Holy Scriptures about succession of bishops 
any more than about succession of priests ? There was a 
dash of indignant feeling in his tone. 

I said that I never knew or heard any reason for this 
distinction. St. Paul speaks of Timothy as having been 
ordained " by the laying on of the hands of the Presby- 
tery," as well as his own. And that I believed that the 
true succession is in the Presbytery at large, and not in the 
Episcopacy alone. I then told him, that in the church of 
England the ordination is conferred not by the bishop alone, 
but by him and by the Presbytery, that is, by the clergy 
present, who all, along with the bishop, lay their hands 
alike on the head of the candidate. The church of Eng- 



APOSTOLICITY OF THE CHURCH. 



105 



land does not acknowledge the distinction, and she thus 
shews that she holds that the true apostolical succession is 
not in the bishops alone, but in the bishops and pres- 
byters together. 

He thanked me warmly for this, and shewed that some 
little difficulties had been removed from his mind. He 
seemed more at his ease, as if he breathed more freely. 
He said that everything went to shew there was no sure or 
certain way of proving the true church but by the Holy 
Scriptures. That was the only true apostolicity. 

I took the opportunity of pressing this upon him. I 
also took a short review of our argument, reminding him it 
arose on the meaning of the words " apostolical church " 
in the creed ; — that it could not mean a church founded by 
apostles or in apostolic times, for that many other churches, 
as that of Jerusalem, founded by our Lord himself, and 
blessed with the presence, the miracles, the teaching, of 
St. Peter, and all the apostles, had fallen into apostacy 
and Mahometanism ; — that it could not mean a succession 
in the ministry from apostolic days, for that belonged to 
every church, and was therefore not an exclusive mark of 
any — and that finally, it could only mean a church which 
held, believed, and loved, and practised the doctrines and 
discipline of the apostles, as set forth in their own writings 
and sermons in the Holy Scriptures. 

We soon parted. I felt thankful that his manner shewed 
a greater approximation to my opinions than on any former 
conversation. 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



CONFESSION OF SIN TO GOD THE ROMISH FORM OF CONFESSION 

SCRIPTURE TEXTS ON CONFESSION THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 

THE TWO CHURCHES CONFESSION ONLY COMMANDED TO GOD 

MUTUAL CONFESSION PRIESTLY ABSOLUTION PROVED USELESS 

BY A DILEMMA THE ABSOLVING AND FORGIVING POWER IN- 
VOLVED IN THE WORDS OF OUR LORD MATT. XVIII. 18. JOHN 

XX. 23 THIS POWER BELONGS TO ALL BELIEVERS ALTKE THE 

POWER OF FORGIVENESS DEFINED EXPLANATION OF THE ALLU- 
SION TO THE LEVITICAL LAW IN THE WORDS OF OUR LORD 

OBJECTION TO THE ROMISH DOCTRINE AS INCONSISTENT WITH 

DIVINE JUSTICE WITH SOCTA.L MORALITY NOTE, ON THE FORM 

OF ABSOLUTION IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

I was speaking one day, in the cottage of one of my 
people, on the duty of confessing our sins to God. There 
were several present, and among them three or four mem- 
bers of the Church of Rome. I had no thought of them 
particuliarly while speaking on the subject, my object was 
to shew that if we are deeply impressed with a sense of 
our sinfulness, we shall be very lowly and humble, and shall 
think very lowly and humbly of ourselves ; and at times 
hate and loathe ourselves^ at the memory of our sins ; — that 
then the Christian will go before his God and Saviour, and 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



107 



confess his sinfulness, and ask for pardon from him against 
whom he has sinned, and who alone can forgive. While 
enlarging on this, I pressed on my hearers that humiliation 
and repentance were inseparable from a real Christianity ; 
and that a confession of sin to God was inseparable from 
these. I referred to the beautiful and touching confession 
in the prophet Daniel ix. 3 — 19, as an illustration of what 
such a humiliation and confession ought to be. And I 
pressed also on them, that there was a comfort and a bles- 
sedness, and a sweet peace for the heart, when the man 
thus pours out his whole soul unreservedly before his G.od, 
unburthening and unbosoming himself to Him " whose 
eyes are over the righteous, and whose ears are open to 
their prayers ; " thus seeking the sympathy and looking for 
the forgiveness of his God. There is an inexpressible 
happiness in thus pouring out one's soul before Him, in the 
confession of sin, and in the prayer for forgiveness, and 
then experiencing the peace and joy that, in answer to 
prayer, is breathed into the soul of the believer ; it steals 
into the heart like dew upon the tender grass, and there is 
peace and happiness more beautiful to the spiritual eye, 
than even the sparkling and brilliancy of the dew upon the 
herb. The heart rejoices, and sees beauty, and love, and 
happiness in every thing. 

After I had thus expressed myself, without any allusion 
to any particular church, one of the Roman Catholics 
present said, that they were in the habit of making this 
confession to the priest and receiving his absolution. And 
that they experienced thus the peace and happiness of 
having their sins forgiven. 

This led to a short conversation on the form called "The 



103 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Confiteor," which he repeated, as usually said at the con- 
fessional. It runs thus : " I confess to Almighty God, to 
the blessed Mary, ever Virgin, to blessed Michael the 
Archangel, to blessed John Baptist, to the holy Apostles 
Peter and Paul, to all the saints, and to you, father, 
that I have sinned exceedingly, in thought, word, and 
deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my 
most grievous fault. [The person then specifies his several 
sins in their details, and concludes] — therefore, I beseech 
the blessed Mary ever Virgin, the blessed Michael the Arch- 
angel, blessed John Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and 
Paul, and all the saints, and you father, to pray to our 
Lord God for me." He added, that when the confession 
was made in this form, it was said to be under the seal of 
confession, and must not be disclosed by the priest ; but 
that if made without this form, the priest was not bound 
to keep it secret ; and therefore every one learned this 
form so as to secure the secrecy of his confession ; so that 
a Roman Catholic had not only the advantage of having his 
sins forgiven, but also of having them kept secret for ever. 

1 said, that there was something else in that form of 
still more importance. It contained a confession of sin to 
God and to the saints alike, as if there was no difference 
between them, and as if the sin was as much against one 
as the other ! And then there is a prayer to the saints — 
not to God, but only to the saints, to pray to God for the 
penitent ! But still more than all, I added, there is no 
prayer to God, neither to the Father, the Son, or the Holy 
Spirit — there is no mention of the blessed name of Jesus 
Christ, through whom alone we can have forgiveness ; and 
there is no allusion to the Holy Spirit, through whom 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



109 



alone we can be made holy ; and no cry to him for repent- 
ance, no prayer for forgiveness, no desire for sanctification ! 
There is the absence of all that is distinctive of true Chris- 
tianity. I added, that all this omission seems designed to 
draw away the minds of the people from Jesus Christ and 
the Holy Spirit, in order to lead them to think only of the 
priest, and to confess only to him, and to look only to him 
for forgiveness. It seemed to do this effectually ; but alas, 
it leads them to forget Christ. 

This remark was felt — deeply felt by some present ; and 
it led to some very serious conversation. But we soon 
separated, not however, till it was arranged that on an 
appointed evening they should come again with some other 
of their friends to speak more fully on the subject. 

In the course of some few days we met again ; our party 
might now consist of some sixteen or eighteen persons, 
of whom the larger portion were members of the church of 
Rome. 

The conversation commenced, by one of them asking 
me, why the Protestants did not practise confession. He 
said that every man was a sinner, and therefore had sins to 
confess, — that he thereby received forgiveness and conso- 
lation ; — that the church of Rome had therefore ordained 
that evepy one should confess his sins, at least once a year ; 
that she did this in accordance with the Holy Scriptures, 
which expressly commanded the practice of confession, as 
where it is said, " Confess your sins one to another," — 
James v. 16. And as was practised in the presence of John 
the Baptist, as we read, <f They were baptized of him in 
Jordan, confessing their sins." — Matt. iii. 6. And again, 
before St. Paul, as we read, " Many that believed, came, and 



110 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



confessed, and shewed their deeds." — Acts xix. 18. There 
was confession in the Holy Scriptures, and yet Protestants 
never practise it. 

I stated that he was altogether under a mistake in sup- 
posing that Protestants do not confess ; for myself I said, 
that I would not for all this world could give, forego the 
privilege of confessing my sins, — that day by day, and night 
by night, publicly and privately it was my practice — that I 
believed and knew it was the practice of every religious 
Protestant ; and that no truly pious person would omit it. 
But — for I saw the surprise experienced by manv at 
the statement, — I added, there was no difference whatever, 
between the two churches, as to the duty of confession, 
the difference was, as to the person to whom the confession 
was to be made ; Romanists confessing to the priest, 
while Protestants confess to God. There is the true differ- 
ence between us. 

I perceived that this was fully recognized, and being un- 
willing that our conversation should be merely controversial, 
I went on to say, that the Christian ever found a comfort, 
and a blessedness, and a peace in coming to his God, and in 
deep humiliation and sincere penitence, confessing his sins, 
and praying for mercy, pardon, and grace. It was only 
the man who had tried and experienced it, could believe the 
blessed comfort, and the inward peace that he enjoyed, who 
could retire to his inmost chamber, and there, where there 
was no eye to see his tears, but His who seeth in secret, 
and no ear to hear his words, but His whose ears are open 
to the prayers of his people — there unbosoming himself, 
unburthening his aching, bursting heart, pouring out as it 
were, his whole soul, with all its sin, and sorrow, and 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



Ill 



shame, and there watching and waiting till, so to speak, he 
feels the blood- drops of the crucified Saviour fall upon the 
prostrate penitent, and touch his soul. It seems to come 
soft as the dew of heaven, to soothe and refresh his crushed 
and bruised spirit. It is only such a man that really knows 
the comfort and blessedness of confession to his God, and he 
who does know it, will never forego such a well-spring and 
fountain of peace, for all the happiness the world can give. 

All this was fully assented to, and there were some who 
seemed to feel as if it was true ; but it was remarked that 
while a man ought to confess his sins to his God, he ought 
also to confess them to his priest, who was authorized by 
the Almighty to hear the confession and to give the abso- 
lution, so that the question was again asked, — why the Pro- 
testants did not practise confession to the priest ? 

I answered this enquiry by saying as before, that the 
precise difference between the churches, was, that one made 
confession to God, and the other to the priest — that the 
clear and express language of the Holy Scripture always 
enjoined the former, and supplied no instance of the latter. 
To substantiate this statement, I referred to the following 
texts. 

"And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, 
glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto 
him ; and tell me now what thou hast done ; hide it not 
from me." — Joshua vii. 19. 

" And Hezekiah spake comfortably unto all the Levites 
that taught the good knowledge of the Lord : and they did 
eat throughout the feast seven days, offering peace-offer- 
ings, and making confession to the Lord God of their 
fathers."— 2 Chron. xxx. 22. 



112 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



" And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye 
have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase 
the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession 
unto the Lord God of your fathers, and do his pleasure." — 
Ezra x. 10, 11. 

" I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity 
have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions 
unto the Lord ; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin." 
— Psalm xxxii. 5. 

" And I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my 
confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, 
keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and 
to them that keep his commandments," — Dan. ix. 4. 

" If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, 
and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is 
faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us 
from all unrighteousness." — 1 John i. 8, 9. 

In each of these places, we have either a command to 
make our confession to God, or an encouragement to do 
so, or an example of it. They are plain and clear texts, 
which every one can understand. And they are thus an 
illustration of the Protestant practice, of confessing only to 
God. They are also a justification of our practice, while 
at the same time, there is not a single command in the 
Holy Scriptures to justify confession to a priest, nor a 
single example to illustrate it. Auricular Confession, that is 
a private and secret confession to the alone ear of a priest, 
is a thing unknown in the Holy Scriptures. 

Many eyes were now directed to our friend, who had 
asked the question, and they seemed to feel that my argu- 
ment required an answer. There was a pause of some mo- 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



113 



merits, and it would have continued, if it had not been bro- 
ken by one of those whose love of the ludicrous, so common 
and indeed national, could not restrain itself. With an 
arch eye, and a look intensely droll, he suggested to him 
in a half whisper, the example of Judas, who, having be- 
trayed the Saviour, returned to the priests, and confessed 
it ! The drollery of making Judas the example to be fol- 
lowed, acted like magic on a second of the party present, 
who suggested in the same undertone, that Judas knew 
his duty well, for he brought the money to the priest, when 
he made his confession ! 

These sallies, however unfitting the subject, are irrepres- 
sible among the Irish, even upon the most solemn subject. 
So appearing not to hear what had past, I remarked that 
the places usually cited by Roman Catholics in favour of 
confession to the priest, had no reference whatever to it. The 
text, " Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for 
another," only taught a mutual confession ; — that where we 
have sinned against God or against our fellows, we should 
not secretly or proudly conceal it, or deny it, but mutually 
confess it ; — we should frankly and openly as Christian bre- 
thren, confess it one to another. It is not that we are to 
confess our faults to the priest alone, but "one to another;" 
so that if we confess to the priests, they should confess to 
us in return. The simple words of the text, shew that it 
is a mutual confession, and not a confession to the priest 
alone. It is a brotherly confession, and has nothing sacer- 
dotal in it. If, I added, these words prove that any among 
you should confess to the priest, they also prove that the 
priest should confess to you in return. The words are 
"Confess your faults one to another." They command 



114 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



two things — confession and prayer, and both are desired to 
be mutual. It is neither prayer for the priest alone, nor 
confession to the priest alone, It is mutual prayer, and 
mutual confession. 

This answer was sufficient, and the general feeling exhi- 
bited among all present, was that of satisfaction at the 
answer, so far as this particular text is concerned. Instead 
of cavilling or questioning, they acknowledged that I had 
given the fair meaning of the words. And one remarked 
with the general approval, or at least assent of the others, 
that the words "pray one for another," did not mean 
"pray for the priest alone ; " but that we were to pray for 
the priest, and the priest was to pray for us. It was mutual 
prayer — prayer one for another. And in the same way, 
he added, " Confess your sins one to another," must mean 
that both priest and layman are to confess or acknowledge 
one to another their many sins.* 

But while the question thus far seemed inclining in my 
favor, I felt that the great struggle upon which my oppo- 

* The other two texts are seldom much dwelt on, by candid Roman 
Catholics; indeed they present no real difficult3 r . The place in Matt, 
iii. 6, simply states that the parties came openly and publicly to John the 
Baptist, and that he baptized them openly and publicly ; and when they 
are said to confess their sins, it was evidenth T , as openly and publicly as 
their coming to him and being baptized by him. It could not, at least, be 
a sacerdotal confession, inasmuch as the Baptist was neither a Jewish 
Priest, nor a Christian Priest. And the same remark explains the place 
in Acts xix. 18. It was the open and public acknowledgment of their 
former evil lives and sinful deeds. It was the act of men, who were con- 
vinced of their sins, and openly and publicly confessed it ; and shewed 
the sincerity of their, conversion, by openly and publicly surrendering 
their bad books, and burning them before all. There is nothing of 
Auricular Confession — nothing of Sacerdotal Confession in it. 



CONFESSION AXD ABSOLUTION. 



115 



nents relied, was still in reserve — that we had been thus 
far only skirmishing 1 as with small arms, while the heavy 
artillery on which they most depended was still to come 
into action. And I therefore prepared myself for what was 
at hand — namely, the argument for auricular confession 
derived from the power of absolution. My expectation 
was deferred for a few moments, as one of the party urged 
the following argument : — 

It is found by experience, he said, that the practice of 
confessing to a priest is good, and although it certainly 
cannot be well proved from Holy Scripture, certainly not 
from the wGrds in St. James, yet the practice is very good 
in itself, and prevents many a man from failing into sin. 
When a man — or woman either — knows he must go to 
confession — that sooner or later he must tell his sin to his 
clergy — that though he perhaps, may be able to hide it 
from every one else, yet he cannot keep it a secret from his 
priest, but must tell him all the shame — when a man knows 
this, it many times frightens him before-hand, and prevents 
his committing the sin. The fear of the priest prevents 
him. Now, he added, this is the way with Roman Catho- 
lics ; but the Protestants have no such fear of the clergy, 
because they have no confession. 

This objection had often before been pressed upon me, 
and therefore I was the more prepared with my answer. I 
stated that the argument was very characteristic of the 
difference between the two churches. It spoke of the fear 
of a priest — of the fear of man — of the fear of a fellow- 
mortal and fellow-sinner. It spoke of men and women 
being deterred from sin by this fear. But it said nothing 
of the fear of God, and our Lord has said, "Fear not him 



116 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



that can kill the body — but fear him that can cast both 
body and soul into hell, yea, I say unto you, fear Him." 
Now while this abstaining from sin merely through fear of 
man is very characteristic of the church of Rome, it is far 
otherwise with Protestants. We feel that however secret 
our sin — however unknown to the world — however done in 
our secret chamber — however buried in our own bosom, 
yet is it known to an all-seeing God, and will yet be 
made known by Him before an assembled universe. We 
may do it "in the secret chamber," but He w T ill proclaim it 
"on the housetop." The mere fear of man is nothing with 
us, in comparison with this. The difference between us, is, 
that Romanists abstain from sin through fear of the priest, 
while the Protestant forbears through fear of God. The 
difference is a very wide one, and however painful to con- 
template — and however unwilling I might be to express it 
— yet it has been necessitated by its being made an argu- 
ment in favor of confession to a priest. Confession to a 
priest leads to a fear of the priests — confession to God 
leads to the fear and the love of God. 

I do not know what effect this might have had on my 
hearers, but I had often before observed that the contrast 
acted favorably for our Protestantism upon minds religiously 
disposed among the Roman Catholics. And as there was 
a pause — a momentary silence, I added, that if the argu- 
ment in favor of confession to a priest, was that the fear of 
being obliged to reveal all to him, actually deterred from 
the commission of the sin, then confession to a sheriff or 
to a magistrate, or to a hangman, if commanded and en- 
forced in the same way, would serve the purpose of fright- 
ening from sin, as well as confession to a priest. This I 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



117 



felt was but a poor and miserable motive against sin, it was 
but a ghastly spectre — -a superstition to frighten children 
or grown persons, as weak and mindless as children. There 
is no restraint upon sin worth the name, except a love of 
God, impelling us to do all things to please Him ; and a 
reverence of God, that leads us to avoid all that is dis- 
pleasing in His sight. These are the motives that God 
himself presents to his intelligent creatures, and a mere 
fear of man is unworthy of us, either as men or as 
Christians. 

It was immediately stated that besides the fear of being 
obliged to reveal all the sin with its shame, and its aggra- 
vations, there was another feeling. It was the wish for 
forgiveness, that more than everything else led to confes- 
sion. The priest had authority from the Great God to give 
absolution of sin, and so long as he had that power the 
poor sinner would come to him and seek absolution. And 
this, of course, he cannot have, unless he has first made a 
full confession of all his sins. He must confess his sins. He 
must repent of them. And then the priest can forgive him. 

I took up his words " he must repent of them," and 
repeated them slowly, so as to fix the attention of all, and 
then asked, whether this repentance was necessary in order 
to absolution — whether this repentance was necessary in 
order that the absolution of the priest might be effectual. 

It was of course necessary, was the reply, for there can 
be no forgiveness without repentance. 

Is then, I asked, this repentance so necessary that the 
absolution is null and void without it ? 

Assuredly so, it was answered : If the man does not re- 
pent, the priest cannot forgive, his absolution is worthless. 



118 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Then, I answered, the uselessness of the system of the 
church of Rome is sufficiently evident, for you acknow- 
ledge that if the man, who confesses to the priest, has not 
repented of his sins, he is not forgiven, and cannot be for- 
given by the priest, no matter whether the priest pro- 
nounces the absolution or not. If the man has not repented, 
the priest has no power or authority to forgive. His abso- 
lution is null and void ! Now, I added, there is another 
case to consider — if the man has repented of his sins, he 
does not want the forgiveness of the priest, because he has 
already received the forgiveness of Jesus Christ ! I then 
laid down broadly what I knew would be fully and freely 
admitted, that the promise of forgiveness of sins was 
made by Jesus Christ to all who repented — that the Apos- 
tle Peter said " Repent and be converted, that your sins 
may be blotted out," — Acts iii. 19. When a man has 
repented of his sins, he forthwith has the forgiveness of 
Jesus Christ ; and having this, he has no need of the for- 
giveness of the priest. 

There could be no doubt or mistake as to the effect which 
this mode of treating the question, had upon the minds of 
those present. It was unmistakable : indeed I have never 
known the argument pressed on the minds of the Roman 
Catholics, without considerable effect following. They 
invariably feel it, and although unhappily they sometimes 
regard it as a mere perplexing difficulty, which they cannot 
answer or overcome, yet they always feel its power, and not 
^infrequently it has detached them altogether from the 
notion of a sacerdotal forgiveness of sins. On the present 
occasion, my object was to force it on their consideration, 
and I asked : — 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



119 



Is it not true — is it not the doctrine of the church of 
Rome herself, that if the man has not repented, the priest 
cannot forgive him, and his absolution is consequently 
useless ? 

It is certainly true, was the reply frankly given. 

Is it not also true, I continued — is it not also the doctrine 
of the church of Rome, that if the man has repented of his 
sins, Jesus Christ has forgiven them ? — so that he has thus 
the forgiveness of Jesus Christ already, and does not want 
the forgiveness of the priest. It is useless. 

To this there was no reply, so that I asked — whether I 
was clearly understood ? 

The answer given was clear and decisive. It was to the 
effect that my argument was that the absolution of the priest 
was useless, — that if the man repented not, the pardon of 
the priest was useless, as it could do nothing ; and that if 
the man had indeed repented, the pardon of the priest was 
also useless, because the man had already the pardon of 
Jesus Christ ; — that in either case the pardon of the clergy 
was useless. 

I said quietly that my argument was rightly understood, 
and I asked for an answer. It was frankly said in return, 
that they could not answer it. 

For some moments more the conversation continued on 
this point, and then turned to another subject altogether. 
It was the most difficult and important of all. 

It was this — that our Lord Jesus Christ gave to His 
apostles the power of forgiving or retaining sins, — that these 
apostles were succeeded in this power by the bishops, as their 
successors in the church, — that these bishops impart or 
delegate this power to the priests of the church, — that as 



120 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



the priests receive thus the power to forgive or retain sins, 
it is necessary that all persons should confess such sins to 
the priests before they can impart the forgiveness, as they 
cannot forgive the sins till they know them. And all this 
was founded on — " Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye 
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye 
shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." — Matt, 
xviii. 1 8. And — " Whose soever sins ye remit, they are 
remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they 
are retained." — John xx. 23. 

My answer to this was at some length. I cannot under- 
take to give more than an abstract of it. It may startle 
many. It may be new to more. But believing most 
sacredly that it is the true solution of this difficult question, 
I may feel fear and trembling as to my power of developing 
my views, but I have the most unbounded confidence in 
their truth. 

The first question — and a most natural one it is — is as to 
the persons to whom these words were spoken. 

Were they addressed to the apostles alone, either as 
Christians, specially favoured; or, as men representing their 
successors in the episcopacy or in the priesthood or in the 
ministry of the church ? 

Or — Were they addressed to the apostles and others — 
not to the apostles alone but with others, apostles and other 
lay disciples, not as representing the clergy alone, but as 
representing both the clergy and laity, in short, the whole 
church or body of his believing people ? 

It is apparent that the whole inquiry as to the power of 
binding and loosing, of forgiving or retaining sin, depends 
on the solution of this question ; for if the words of our 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



121 



Lord were addressed to the apostles alone, as representing 
the ministry of the church, then there is some ground for 
confining this power, whatever it be, tc the ministry. But 
if, on the other hand, our Lord addressed these words to 
lay disciples, as well as to the twelve apostles, then it will 
be clear that this power belongs to the whole body of the 
church — as much to the laity as to the priesthood. 

This consideration greatly narrows our inquiry, and les- 
sens the difficulty, as it avoids all the mists and clouds 
which the dust of human learning has gathered and thick- 
ened around the subject to obscure and darken it. 

Our first inquiry therefore is, as to the persons to whom 
the words in Matt, xviii. 18, are addressed. 

The chapter opens with the statement that while our 
Lord was speaking to Peter and others on the subject of 
miracles and paying tribute, other disciples came to him. 
" At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, 
Who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven ? And Jesus 
called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst, and 
said," &c. These words plainly imply that there were 
other persons beside the twelve apostles present. Indeed, 
in reference to some others, his weak disciples present, he 
says, at verse 10, "Take heed that ye despise not one of 
these little ones ; " and again, at verse 14 — " It is not the 
will of your Father that one of these little ones should 
perish." This language implies, that besides the apostles 
there were others present, who were as children in the 
knowledge of Christ. And beside this consideration, it is 
to be observed that the word is not "Apostles" but 
" Disciples." [And although these words are sometimes 
convertible terms, yet they certainly are not always nor 

G 



122 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



generally so. In John xxi. 1, there are some named as 
disciples, as Nathanael of Galilee, who were not apostles. 
And in Acts i. 15, the disciples are said to have been one 
hundred and twenty in number, and among the number 
were women, upon whom, as the "daughters" and "hand- 
maids " of the Lord, the Spirit descended, as well as on 
the twelve apostles, Acts ii. 17.] And thus it is to the 
disciples, in the extended sense, that the words of our Lord 
in this chapter are addressed. This is the more apparent 
when we consider the solemn words on the subject of 
offences, the offending hand, or foot, or eye — a subject 
that runs from the sixth to the tenth verses, and that cer- 
tainly was not designed for the twelve apostles alone, but 
for all the disciples of Christ. And so too, in all his 
words, from the eleventh to the fourteenth verses, where 
he speaks of his sheep that had gone astray, and of himself 
as the true and loving Shepherd, that sought them and 
found them, and rejoiced over them. In like manner, all 
that remarkable discourse, from the fifteenth to the seven- 
teenth verse, in which he teaches every Christian how he 
is to act in reference to his offending brother. It cannot 
possibly be supposed to mean how the twelve apostles were 
to act towards each other, but how all loving Christians, 
— all his disciples were to act. And again, when at the 
nineteenth verse, he promises his presence among any two 
or three who assemble together in his name, such promise 
is assuredly designed, not merely for the twelve apostles, 
but for the encouragement and the comfort of all his faith- 
ful people. And then, when from the twenty -first verse to 
the conclusion of the chapter, our Lord unfolds the for- 
giving spirit of the Christian, and enforces his precept by 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



123 



reference to his own forgiving love ; it is impossible to 
reflect even for a moment, without the conviction that all 
is addressed to and designed for his disciples generally, and 
not merely for the twelve apostles alone. 

This being the character of the whole chapter in all its 
details, it is altogether inconsistent with all right canons of 
interpretation, to select one verse out of the thirty-five — to 
select one verse, the eighteenth, and assert that it is ad- 
dressed, not to the disciples generally, but to the twelve 
apostles alone. From the fifteenth verse to the end of the 
chapter, our Lord is speaking of the offences and trespasses 
of Christians against one another, and their duty to forgive 
one another. And it is in the midst of this he utters the 
remarkable words — " Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth 
shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever ye shall loose 
on earth shall be loosed in heaven " — words addressed not 
to the twelve apostles alone, but to his disciples in general. 
All right reasoning and all just exposition alike demand 
that these words be regarded as conveying no peculiar or 
exclusive power to the clergy alone, but that only which 
belongs in common to all the people of Christ. 

This consideration at once removes these words, Matt, 
xviii. 18, from the category of those supposed to confer 
exclusively on the priesthood the power of absolution or 
forgiveness. They confer the same power upon the laity. 
It is not a sacerdotal but a Christian forgiveness. And 
addressed, as they are, to all the people of Christ, they 
convey the promise, that if we, acting in the loving and 
forgiving spirit of Christ, shall forgive any who sin against 
us, that forgiveness shall assuredly be ratified in heaven. 
If we forgive, He also will forgive. And this is our grand 
G 2 



124 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



encouragement to forgive ; for that forgiveness will be rati- 
fied above. 

The same process of reasoning leads to the same results 
in reference to the other place where these remarkable 
words occur, in John xx. 23. 

The inquiry here is — whether these words were addressed 
to the apostles ahne, and through them to the priesthood 
of the church — or, whether they were addressed to the 
apostles with other disciples, and so to the whole body of 
the faithful in Christ. 

This inquiry finds its solution by reference to the parallel 
narrative of the same transaction in the Gospel of St. Luke, 
chapter xxiv. 

It appears from the first verse that our Lord arose on 
the first day of the week. " Now upon the first day of 
the week, very early in the morning." It also appears 
from the next verse, that those who first visited the sepul- 
chre came and, as is said at verse 9, " told all these things 
unto the eleven and to all the rest." [Note, that these 
words imply the assembling of some others with the apos- 
tles.] It next appears, from the thirteenth verse, that it 
was this same day that our Lord met the two disciples at 
Emmaus — " two of them went that same day to a village 
called Emmaus." Of these, one at least, whose, name was 
Cleopas, verse 18, was not an apostle. And these the very 
same day, as evening drew on, returned to the eleven 
apostles at Jerusalem. This is stated at verse 33, — " They 
rose up the same hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found 
the eleven gathered together, and them that were with 
them, saying, the Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared 
unto Simon. — And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



125 



in the midst of them, and said, Peace be unto you — behold 
my hands and my feet, that it is I myself ; handle me and 
see." 

From this, it is evident, that on that solemn occasion 
when our Lord appeared among his disciples, on the very 
evening of the day of his resurrection, when he spoke the 
blessed words, " Peace be unto you ; " and when he 
shewed them his hands and his feet in proof of his identity, 
and that he was not merely a spirit — -that on that solemn 
occasion there were present not only the apostles, but also 
the disciples of Emmaus, and others besides. The expres- 
sion is decisive — "They found the eleven gathered toge- 
ther, AND THEM THAT WERE WITH THEM," an expression 

very similar to that of verse 9, " to the eleven, and to all 
the rest." So that there can be no doubt of there being 
present on that occasion several Christians, who were not of 
the number of the apostles, probably a large number, pos- 
sibly the 120 we read of in Acts i. 15. Now there is 
nothing in sacred history more certain, than that it was on 
this very occasion, and to this mixed assembly, that our 
Lord addressed the remarkable words — " Whose soever sins 
ye forgive, they are forgiven, and whose soever sins ye retain, 
they are retained." Thereby conferring this power, what- 
ever it be, not only on the twelve apostles, as representing 
the priesthood of the church, but also on all his other 
faithful disciples then present; not only to all "the eleven," 
but to " them that were with them," and " all the rest." 
This appears, beyond all doubt or question, by reference to 
the gospel of John, who describes the resurrection as 
having taken place on the first day of the week ; and then 
describes the appearing of our Lord in the evening of that 



126 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



same day, verse 19, to his " disciples," using- the very- 
words detailed by Luke, " Peace be unto you ; " and in the 
same way shewing his hands and feet. " Then the same 
day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the 
doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for 
fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and 
saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so 
said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then 
were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then 
said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you : as my Father 
hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said 
this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye 
the Holy Ghost : Whose soever sins ye remit, they are re- 
mitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they 
are retained." — John xx. 19 — 23. The conclusion from 
this is incontestable, namely, that these words were ad- 
dressed, not exclusively to the twelve apostles, as repre- 
senting the priesthood of the church, or as giving to them 
any peculiar or exclusive power over their fellow-sinners of 
the laity, but to all other disciples or believers then present ; 
thus conferring upon all, apostles and disciples alike — on 
clergy and laity alike, the very same power or privilege — 
whatever it may be — granting it to all alike. 

This consideration removes this text, like the former one, 
from the category of those which are supposed to confer 
exclusively on the priesthood the power of forgiving and 
retaining sins. Whatever that power may be, it clearly 
belongs to the disciples as much as to the apostles — to the 
laity as fully as to the clergy. 

The argument which I found upon all this is, that seeing 
the two places wherein these words of our Lord occur, 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



127 



namely, Matt, xviii. 18, and John xx. 24, describe those 
words as addressed to the body of the laity as much as to 
the body of the clergy, in fact to the whole family of 
disciples or church of Christ ; so they do not confer any 
peculiar power or exclusive privilege on the clergy as 
distinct from the laity. The apostles were present, and so 
may be thought to represent the clergy. The laity were 
present, and so may be supposed to represent the laity. 
And these remarkable words being addressed to all alike, 
cannot, on any right rules of interpretation, be ascribed 
peculiarly or exclusively to either. They belong to the 
whole church or body of the faithful. 

There is no answer — and there can be no answer — to 
this, except that which objects that it is impossible, or at 
least improbable, that the power of absolution or forgive- 
ness should be ceded to the laity—that it is essentially a 
priestly or clerical function, and cannot, from its nature, 
belong to the body of the faithful. 

The reply to this is obvious, at least, it has ever seemed 
to me to be obvious, and I have therefore, always given it 
in answer to this objection. My reply is, that this notion 
of absolution and forgiveness being a priestly act, and one 
of which the laity are incapable, is nothing else than a 
mere prejudice — a prejudice which has no warrant what- 
ever from the Holy Scriptures — a prejudice which has 
originated in and been sustained by the church of Rome ; 
and which, in the darkness and superstition and priestcraft 
of the middle ages, had become infused in all the religious 
notions and theological books for centuries, and which was 
not clearly seen as such, and cast out of the church, at 
the Reformation. It has thus been mistakenly fostered 



128 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



among us, and has been the cause of weakness, and sadness, 
and trouble, and perplexity among us, drawing some of 
our holiest minds in the direction of dissent, and leading 
some of our most argumentative minds in the direction of 
Romanism. The axe should be laid at its root, to cut it 
down as cumbering the ground. The truth should be 
stated broadly . The power of binding and loosing — the 
power of absolving and retaining, belongs to the layman as 
fully as to the priest. It was ceded by Jesus Christ to all 
his disciples, to all his faithful ones ; in other words, to all 
his church, composed, as it is, of clergy and laity. And 
this power belongs not exclusively to either, but equally to 
both. 

It is here, however, the question occurs as to what may 
be the real meaning of these remarkable words of our Lord, 
and what is the real range and extent of the power they 
involve. 

The answer to this question must necessarily be such an 
interpretation of the words, as will be applicable to the 
laity, as well as to the clergy ; and such a description of a 
power as belongs to the one as well as to the other. 

There seem three kinds of forgiveness. 

I. The first is that of a man, who forgives, as he has 
the undoubted right, the offences or injuries of his fellow- 
man against himself. Every man, whether cleric or lay, 
possesses this power. 

II. The next is where an offence or wrong is done to 
a body of men, as a congregation or church ; then it is 
clear that such body can forgive the offence or wrong 
against itself. And in such case the body may delegate 
one or more of its number to communicate that forgiveness, 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



129 



or to give that forgiveness in its name. The minister or 
ministers of the body, are very fitting persons to be invested 
with this delegated authority, and thus may absolve offen- 
ders in the name of the whole body of the church ; but it 
is clear that, in this case, they do it as the representatives of 
the laity, and not as the delegates of God. Their power or 
authority is from the church and not from God. 

III. There is another way in which a man may be said 
to forgive ; — namely, when he declares and pronounces the 
forgiveness of another ; as when he proclaims the forgive- 
ness of God to the repentant sinner. It is clear that this 
can be done by either clergyman or layman. But it is 
equally clear that the former is authorized and the other not ; 
— that the clergyman is especially appointed, charged, com- 
missioned to proclaim the forgiveness in such a way as the 
layman cannot do. The criminal under sentence of death 
may be pardoned by his gracious sovereign. Any man, 
who has access to the criminal may inform him of this, 
but the sheriff alone is the official authorized to do so, 
and therefore it is only his announcement that satisfies the 
criminal. And so in the proclamation of the Gospel ; any 
man may proclaim it to the sinner. The minister of God 
is appointed especially to do so. The former is unautho- 
rized. The latter speaks authoritatively. In either case 
it is God alone who forgives, and his minister only declares 
and pronounces it. 

This gives us a key to the full understanding of the 
words of our Lord. They are taken from the forms of the 
Levitical law. By that law, in reference to leprosy, [and 
leprosy under the Law was a type of sin under the Gospel,] 
there was an authority given to the priest to examine every 
G 5 



130 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



infected person. And when he found him infected, he had 
authority to pronounce him unclean, that is, diseased, and 
immediately had him " shut up " or " bound," that so he 
might not mingle in the congregation. After a little space 
the priest was to see him again ; and if the leprosy was 
gone, he was to pronounce him clean, that is, healthy, and 
so " absolve " or " loose " the man, permitting him again 
to mingle with the people. This is the allusion in the 
words of our Lord. He gives the power of binding and 
loosing — forgiving and retaining sins. It is clear — as clear 
as if written with a sunbeam, that the power of the Levi- 
tical priests was only a declarative power, a power to 
declare and pronounce the healthy or diseased state of the 
man. They could not make the man either healthy or 
diseased. They neither gave the leprosy nor took it away. 
That was the act of God himself. And the authority given 
to the priests was only to declare and pronounce that which 
God had done. It was a power purely declarative. Now 
as it was this which was in the mind of our Lord when 
he spoke these words, the inference is only natural that the 
power which he gave was only a declarative power — a 
power to declare and pronounce the repentant sinner to 
be forgiven : — not to forgive him, but to declare and pro- 
nounce him forgiven. The forgiveness was the act of God 
himself, and the authority he gave was to declare and pro- 
nounce that which was done by Himself. 

That this is the true purport of our Lord's words, and 
the real nature of the power given, will appear from a 
concise, simple, and scriptural argument. We read — 
"And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, saying, 
When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, a 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



131 



scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin of his flesh 
like the plague of leprosy ; then he shall be brought unto 
Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests : and 
the priest shall look on the plague in the skin of the flesh : 
and when the hah in the plague is turned white, and the 
plague in sight be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is a 
plague of leprosy : and the priest shall look on him, and 
pronounce him unclean. If the bright spot be white in the 
skin of his flesh, and in sight, be not deeper than the skin, 
and the hair thereof be not turned white ; then the priest 
shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days : and 
the priest shall look on him the seventh day : and, behold^ 
if the plague in his sight be at a stay, and the plague 
spread not in the skin ; then the priest shall shut him up 
seven days more : and the priest shall look on him again 
the seventh day : and, behold, if the plague be somewhat 
dark, and the plague spread not in the skin, the priest shall 
pronounce him clean: it is but a scab i and he shall wash his 
clothes, and be clean." — Leviticus xiii. 1 — 6. 

It will be observed that the priest is here said to pro- 
nounce him unclean, at the third verse, and to pronounce 
him clean at the sixth verse. Again, we read at verses 
11 — 13. — " It is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and 
the priest shall pronounce him unclean, and shall not shut 
him up : for he is unclean. And if a leprosy break out 
abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of 
him that hath the plague from his head even to his foot, 
wheresoever the priest looketh ; then the priest shall con- 
sider : and, behold, if the leprosy have covered all his 
flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: 
it is all turned white : he is clean." 



132 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Again, we read in verses 15 — 17— "And the priest shall 
see the raw flesh, and pronounce him to be unclean : for 
the raw flesh is unclean : it is a leprosy. Or if the raw 
flesh turn again, and be changed unto white, he shall come 
unto the priest ; and the priest shall see him : and, be- 
hold, if the plague be turned into white ; then the priest shall 
pronounce him clean that hath the plague: he is clean." 

It will be observed in all these, and the other places 
throughout this chapter, that the priest is said to pronounce 
the man unclean, or to pronounce him clean. And it is 
evident he could do no more : He could not impart 
the leprosy, neither could he take away the leprosy. 
That was the work of God alone. The priest had power 
only to pronounce or declare the man infected or not 
infected, unclean or clean ; and then, according to such 
declaration, the man was bound or loosed, separated from 
the congregation or permitted to mingle in the congre- 
gation. Now, the point of the argument, as connected 
with this chapter, is this : In the Septuagint version of 
the Scriptures, which was the version in general use 
among the Jews in the days of our Lord and His Apostles, 
the priest in this chapter is not said, as in our translation, 
to pronounce the man unclean, but he is said to unclean or po- 
lute the man ; and he is not said to pronounce the man clean, 
but he is said to clean the man. He is said to do that, 
which he only declares or pronounces to be done. His 
powers were not to afflict the man with leprosy, or to take 
away the leprosy ; not to make the man unclean or make the 
man clean ; that rested with God alone, but his powers were 
to pronounce and declare him to be clean, or to pronounce 
and declare him to be unclean, according as he found him. 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



133 



Now as this was the version of the Scriptures, in general 
use in the days of our Lord ; and the version usually 
quoted by him, so from that very circumstance this form of 
expression was one which our Lord was very likely to use, 
and which his apostles and disciples were likely to under- 
stand. When, therefore, He empowered them to remit or 
retain sin, and so bind or loose the sinner, He merely used 
the language of the Levitical law, and must have designed 
them to understand that they, like the Levitical priesthood, 
were to declare and pronounce the forgiveness or non-for- 
giveness of sin, and so bind or loose the sinner ; — that as 
the Levitical priesthood were authorized to declare and 
pronounce a man clean or unclean in the matter of leprosy, 
so now his disciples were to declare and pronounce the 
forgiveness or non-forgiveness of God in the matter of sin. 
And therefore, I conclude, that in using this language our 
Lord designed to impart an authority to his people, not to 
grant His forgiveness or to refuse His forgiveness ; which 
belonged to himself alone, but in his name to declare and 
pronounce His forgiveness to the sinner. 

And now, to bring all this argument to a point : I hold 
that every man, lay as well as clerical, has authority to 
proclaim the Gospel, to preach Christ. And I hold, also, 
that every man, lay as well as clerical, has authority to 
declare and pronounce Christ's absolution and forgiveness 
of sin to all those that repent. This is the inherent birth- 
right of every child of God — the inheritance into which 
he is engrafted when he is born again of the Holy Spirit. 
It is true that the church, that is, the clergy and laity 
combined, may find it wise and convenient and salutary 
to delegate this authority, and especially with reference to 



134 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



offences against the church, more especially to a portion 
of their number, namely, to the clergy, as having been 
specially dedicated to this work. And it may, perhaps, be 
found wise and convenient and salutary that the clergy 
should thus exercise, in the name of the church, this 
special and delegated authority ; but then they do it, and 
must do, and can only do it, as from the church ; — not as 
from Christ, but only as from the church which has com- 
mitted this delegated authority to them. Jesus Christ has 
retained to himself the power of forgiveness of sins. He 
alone can forgive sins against God. And his church, that 
is, the clergy and laity combined, which of course can for- 
give sins against herself, can absolve the sinner by receiving 
him into her communion. 

I believe, that a candid examination of Matt, xviii. 18, 
in its context, will, shew that our Lord is alluding only to 
the offences or injuries done among us, against each other 
— that he gives us the power to forgive each other, pro- 
mising to ratify it in heaven. And it is probable that the 
place in John xx. 23, may refer either to the same thing, 
or to offences or injuries to the church at large ; thus giv- 
ing to the church the power of forgiving those who have 
wronged her. And if the words in either place can be 
interpreted of sins as against God — a most doubtful' sup- 
position, and one that has not the least warrant from Holy 
Scripture — they must be explained by the principles of the * 
Levitical law ; under that law the priests declared and 
pronounced on the cleanness and uncleanness of the leper, 
and those priests were the type of all believers ; who consti- 
tute " the spiritual priesthood," and who, whether clerical 
or lay, can declare and pronounce the forgiveness of God 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



135 



in Christ, for every sinner who repents and believes the 
Gospel ; and who, if clerical or ministerial, that is, specially 
chosen and sent as the ministers of the church and the 
heralds of the Gospel, are specially authorized to do this. 

I feel it to be a great practical objection to the whole system 
of auricular confession and absolution, that it is incompati- 
ble with the purity of divine justice. In order that divine 
justice may be truly pure it must be dispensed by impartial 
and by discriminating hands. And there is, therefore, 
nothing more essential than that the God of all the earth 
should retain it in his own hands. It is God himself who 
tries the sinner. It is God himself who holds the balance. 
It is God himself who holds the sword of judgment or the 
sceptre of mercy. Thus, in our Protestant principles, all 
is well. But it is far otherwise in the church of Rome. In 
the blindness of poor fallen man, in the clouded judgment 
of miserable man, in the partialities, and prejudices, and 
corruptions of human nature, there can be no adequate 
security for the due and righteous administration of divine 
justice; it would be wholly inconsistent with the equality of 
God's dealings, to delegate a power which requires divine 
perfection, omniscience, and purity, to a creature so fallen 
as man. He is an unfitting judge for the eternal destinies 
of his fellow-men. With such a belief, nothing can give 
security. There should be the plainest, and most unmis- 
takable evidence of His delegating this power of forgiving 
or condemning sin to any one class or caste of the human 
family, before we can believe it. And that plain and un- 
mistakable evidence is not pretended. 

So far from this being the case, we may argue before- 
hand its impossibility — its entire inconsistency with the 



136 



EYENTNGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



majesty of the Godhead. For what is the loveliest and 
most glorious attribute in the Divine nature, if it be not 
the forgiveness of sins ? what is the brightest and most 
glorious jewel in the crown of the Eternal, if it be not the 
forgiveness of sins ? And can it be,— can we for a moment 
imagine, that Jehovah has committed that which is the 
glory of His nature, the essence of His reconciled God- 
head, and the jewel of His royal diadem, into the hands of 
man — that He has parted with the noblest attribute of His 
Godhead, and delegated the sceptre of mercy into the 
hands of men ? We believe, that God has reserved all His 
essential attributes to Himself. He is omniscient, and He 
has communicated that omniscience to none, or otherwise 
He would not be the alone Omniscient: He is omnipresent, 
and has delegated His omnipresence to none, or otherwise 
He would not be the alone Omnipresent: He is omnipotent, 
and He has imparted His omnipotence to none, or other- 
wise He would not be the alone Omnipotent. And the 
same is true of the forgiveness of sins. The delegation of 
such prerogatives to the creature, would be placing the 
creature on an equality with the Creator. He could not 
himself extend forgiveness to fallen man, till He had given 
His own Son to make atonement for the sins of man. 
Our forgiveness cost the Lord Jesus the glories of the 
heavens which He forsook, the sufferings of the earth 
which he entered, the humiliation of the flesh which He 
undertook, the agony and bloody sweat, the exceeding 
sorrow of His soul unto death, and the slow, lingering, 
horrid death of the cross. Our forgiveness cost Him 
agonies no tongue can tell ; for they were infinite as the 
sins for which He suffered, and as the justice which He 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 137 



satisfied. And it cannot be, that that jewel of forgive- 
ness, that brightest gem in the diadem of our reconciled 
God, that precious treasure which He has purchased at 
such a price as the blood of the cross, and which flashes 
the most brilliant lustre of all else that is seen in the 
heavens, — it cannot be, that He has given this to the 
defiled hands and the perverted judgments and fallen 
hearts of sinners like ourselves, that we may have the dis- 
pensing of its treasures to others. He has no more dele- 
gated to man the power of forgiveness, than He has dele- 
gated to man the power of creation. And the priests or 
ministers of the church might assume the Divine preroga- 
tive of creation, as well and as reasonably, as assume the 
Divine prerogative of forgiveness. For mortal and fallen 
man, yea, for immortal and unfallen angel, to pretend to 
the powers — the Divine powers of creation, were not a 
greater offence to the glory of the alone Creator, than for 
either man or angel to pretend to the powers — the Divine 
powers, of the forgiveness of sins. 

I was once discussing this point with a Roman Catholic 
priest, in the presence of some twenty Roman Catholics. 
They had brought him to me and had put him forward 
to vindicate against me the power of forgiveness which he 
claimed. 

I argued, on that occasion, in a particular mamaer, with a 
view to the answer which I expected to receive from him 
and from all present, as I knew that my rejoinder would 
then be more effective. I argued, that God in his mercy 
and loving-kindness would never have given to man a 
power so injurious to morality and so calculated to en- 
courage sin. 



138 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



When once men can be brought to believe, that priests 
and ministers have power to forgive sins — to forgive the 
sins of the sinner against God, they become the veriest 
servants of those priests and ministers. We know from 
Holy Scripture, and all history and experience prove its 
truth, that men are willing to sacrifice thousands of rams, 
to offer ten thousand rivers of oil, and to give the fruit of 
their body, to get rid of the sin of their soul. If, there- 
fore, such men can be brought to believe, that priests and 
ministers hold in their hands the sceptre of forgiveness, 
they will become the veriest bondsmen — bound hand and 
foot at the feet of those who possess this power ; and they 
will lay all their wealth at the feet of these priests and 
ministers, in order to purchase at their hands the forgive- 
ness of their sins. And this, too, without any repentance 
before God. The most abandoned profligate, the most 
filthy debauchee, the assassin, murderer, and villain, can 
secure forgiveness for all these hateful enormities, if only 
he can satisfy the priest or minister. And, knowing as we 
do, the weakness and corruption of human nature, we can- 
not be surprised at that which all history witnesses, that 
between money and favour and patronage, a rich man finds 
little difficulty in satisfying the priest or minister. The 
rich man has only to secure a soft, easy confessor, or a 
poor, cringing confessor, or a vicious and profligate con- 
fessor, and if once he has secured such a man, he has only 
to cajole the soft priest, to bribe the poor priest, to feed 
the cringing priest, to promote the aspiring priest, and to 
wink at the profligate priest, and then he is secure of the 
forgiveness of his sins. If this were part and parcel of 
Christianity — as it is part and parcel of Popery — it would 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



139 



be worse than heathenism itself, for it would enable men 
to sin and be forgiven, and sin again and be forgiven again ; 
and a little favour, and more management, and abundance 
of money, would be sure to secure forgiveness. 

I have said nothing of the scenes of temptation, that are 
necessarily associated with the confessional. It is in the 
sphere of every man's experience, that if he has by any 
means discovered the hidden thing, — the secret thing of a 
woman's heart, — if he has discovered her great secret, per- 
haps a secret that nestled in her own breast unknown to all 
beside, a secret of her sin, of her crime, or her sinful ten- 
dencies and her unholy thoughts, it is, I say in the sphere 
of every man's experience, that that woman whose secret 
he thus knows is in his power. How he may be disposed 
to use his power is another question ; but he knows that 
that woman is in his power, and full often he may use 
that power for the worst and basest of purposes. It is also 
in the sphere of any woman's experience, that if she has 
committed any crime against the laws, — any sin against 
morality, she tries to guard her secret in the depths of her 
own heart, and she feels that if she divulge it to any man, 
or if any man has got possession of it, she is in his power. 
She is no longer her own mistress, she becomes his slave. 
Fear and suspicion of his betraying her, places her for ever 
at his feet, she cannot refuse him any demand. And it is 
the same between man and man. And this is the confes- 
sional : it places the secret of every woman in the breast of 
the priest, she is thus in his power for every purpose. It 
places the secret of every man in the power of the priest. 
He is from that moment his slave. This is an objection 
to the confessional to which I know of no satisfactory reply. 



140 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

For it necessarily places both the priest and the penitent 
under circumstances too trying for flesh and blood. Priests 
may be priests, but still the experience of mankind shows 
they are flesh and blood like others. And sure I am, that, 
considering the nature of the communications that pass — 
considering their indelicacy and indecency — considering 
they go not to the actions, but to the secret thoughts and 
concealed desires, all the most private, personal, mysterious 
feelings of our fleshly nature — sure I am, that that God 
who desired us to pray, that we be not led into temptation, 
never himself required us to rush into that worst of all 
scenes of temptation, — the Roman Confessional. 

And then, finally, I have said nothing of that which in- 
terferes with all the most sacred sanctities of home, where 
the husband and wife should live and love in the most per- 
fect and mutual confidence. There — there amidst our 
homes, and besides our hearths, sits the priest of the con- 
fessional. That man, by means of the confessional, knows 
more of the wife's heart and thoughts and feelings, he has 
more of her confidence, and knows more of her secrets, than 
even her own husband. Whatever thought of evil or of good 
has place in her mind — whatever feeling of fondness, or of 
alienations of love, or of coldness, has found a home in her 
heart — whatever desire of infidelity to her vows, or of first 
love to her husband has laid hold of her flesh — whatever it 
be, it is known to the confessor. All may be kept secret 
and unknown from all others, a cherished secret, and a 
mystery within her, scarcely breathed to herself, and con- 
cealed even from her husband — all is revealed in the con- 
fessional. All is known, for it has been whispered in the 
ear of that confident of another sex — that most dangerous 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



141 



of all things, the unmarried confident of another sex — the 
man of the confessional ! There he sits between the hus- 
band and the wife. By day and by night he has more of 
the secret confidence — more of the secrets, the heart-secrets 
of each, than is known to each other. There he sits, some- 
times the kindly adviser, and sometimes the lascivious 
tempter. There he sits, a mysterious being, knowing the 
heart-secrets of both — knowing perhaps the secret infidelity 
of both, and thus having both in his power, able to wield 
them both to his personal purpose. There he sits, the living 
and continual representative of that scene, when in the 
garden of Eden, the man and the woman lived and loved 
together, and were holy when alone, but one entered, and 
there was whispering with the woman, and insidious ques- 
tions were put to her, and she fell ! It was the type of the 
confessional. 

Note. — It is a favorite objection against us, that in the Church of 
England the power of forgiving sins is claimed as strongly as in the 
Church of Rome. And when it is said, in reply to this, that the Church 
of England merely authorises a declarative forgiveness — "power to de- 
clare, and pronounce to his people being penitent, the absolution and re- 
mission of their sins ; " that is, a power, not to forgive, but only to 
" declare and pronounce " that " God pardoneth and absolveth all them 
that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe in his holy Gospel ; " — When 
this is said in reply to the objection, it is usually met by a reference to 
the form of Absolution, used in the office for the Visitation of the Sick. 

The form is as follows, and will be found to be merely the exponent of 
the opinions already expressed. 

" Our Lord Jesus Christ — who hath left power to his Church, to 
absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him— forgive thee 
thine offences. And by his authority committed to me, I absolve thee of 
all thy sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost." 

Here the power of forgiveness of sins is expressly reserved, as the act 



142 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



and promise of Jesus Christ ; and the words are in the form of a prayer, 
that Jesus Christ might forgive the sinner. " The Lord Jesus Christ — 
forgive thee thine offences." 

And the power of absolving is expressly attributed to the Church, not 
to the Clergy or Priesthood alone, but to the church, which is defined as 
" a congregation of faithful people, &c," consisting of both clergy and 
laity ; and this power, for communion, is committed by the church to the 
acting clergyman. 

Thus the forgiveness of sins is described as the special work of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. And the absolving is ascribed to the Church, 
that is, to the clergy and laity combined. Now this absolution is a very 
different thing from forgiveness. The latter belongs exclusively to Christ ; 
the former He has given to the church. The difference between them is 
this : — As the Levitical Priest looked on the leper who was healed, he 
saw that God had healed or cleansed him ; and that he might now loose 
him from the restraint, that prevented his mingling with the people. God 
healed or cleansed the man. The priest pronounced him so healed or 
cleansed of God, and loosed him of his restraint. So under the gospel, 
it is only Christ that can forgive the sin of the sinner. And when the 
minister sees the repentance of the sinner — sees that Christ has forgiven 
him and given him repentance — he absolves him, that is, he frees him 
from the restraint which the discipline of the church has imposed upon 
him, and thus receives him again into the communion of the church. 
Christ has given forgiveness. The minister of the church then absolves 
the man. The truth is, that the old language of theology applied the 
word "forgiveness 1 ' to the sin of the soul, in its relation to God ; while 
it applied the word " absolution " to the position of the offending man, in 
relation to the church. 

I have frequently stated, when giving this answer to my friends of the 
Church of Rome, that I felt the objection ought never to have come from 
them — that when the Liturgy was in process of compilation, a very large 
proportion of the population still retained their old love ; perhaps, "a super- 
stitious, but certainly a very old love for the Roman absolution in the point 
of death — that in a kindly, and loving, and motherly spirit towards such 
weak consciences — towards such weak children, the Church of England 
consented, that to such as " humbly and heartily desire it," the minister 
should pronounce this absolution. She did this in the fulness of love, and 
gentleness, and compassion for them and their weak conscience ; and all 
she guarded against was — that she should not seem to claim the power of 



CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION. 



143 



forgiving the sin. She, therefore, carefully ascribes this to Christ alone ; 
and only claims to herself the right to absolution. Having done this in so 
true and compassionate a spirit towards those, who were still so much 
Romanists, I feel that the objection ought never to have come from the 
Church of Rome. 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE IN PUBLIC 
WORSHIP. 



THE USE OF THE LATIN TONGUE IN ALL THE LITURGICAL SERVICES 

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME ITS INCAPACITY FOR EDIFYING THE 

PEOPLE CONSIDERED AS A MATTER OF DISCIPLINE ITS INCON- 
SISTENCY WITH THE GIFT OF TONGUES ITS OPPOSITION TO THE 

HOLY SCRIPTURES ITS SUPPOSED CONVENIENCE FOR TRAVEL- 
LERS ITS ALLEGED UNIVERSALITY AND ANTIQUITY CONSIDERED 

THE DEVOTIONAL BOOKS READ DURING THE PUBLIC SERVICES 

THE ARGUMENT BASED ON UNITY OR UNIFORMITY IN WORSHIP 

ITS SUPPOSED JUSTIFICATION IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. 



The following conversation arose out of a public meeting. 
It was a meeting of the Bible Society, and was held in a 
village, small and remote. I had spoken, and in referring 
to the opposition to the circulation of the Holy Scriptures, 
then warmly carried on by the Roman Catholic priesthood, 
I expressed my surprise at the apparent inconsistency they 
exhibited. I stated that they celebrated the sacrifice of 
the mass in the Latin tongue — a tongue which was not 
understood, probably, by one solitary individual in the con- 
gregation. It was to them hard, indeed impossible to be 
understood ; and yet the people attended but understood 
not, and they heard but understood not ; but they still 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 145 



attended and still heard, and were taught and required, as 
necessary to salvation, still to attend and still to hear, 
although they felt and knew that they could not understand 
a word of it. I then said, that the inconsistency of the 
Roman Catholic priests was this ; — they commanded the 
people not to read or hear the Holy Scriptures, because 
they were hard to be understood — because none but the 
learned could understand them — because the ignorant peo- 
ple could not understand them ; whereas they commanded 
the people to attend and hear mass, which was celebrated 
in the Latin language, although it was impossible to un- 
derstand it. There was here an inconsistency, for if the 
difficulty of understanding the language of Holy Scripture 
were a sufficient reason for not reading or hearing them ; 
then the difficulty of understanding the Latin language of 
the mass must be a sufficient reason for not attending or 
hearing it. 

This argument had made a considerable impression on 
some Roman Catholics who were present at the meeting ; 
and the following conversation was with one of these. It 
commenced with some reference to the foregoing inconsis- 
tency, and after a time turned altogether upon the practice 
of the Church of Rome. 

I was careful that I should not speak in a tone of con- 
troversy, as if searching to shew how widely we differed ; 
but rather to speak to his judgment and common sense and 
good feeling, and then lead him to the inferences he might 
himself be disposed to draw. 

I commenced by saying, that I thought the great mission 
of the church was, by teaching and instruction to overcome 
the ignorance and the indifference of the world — that the 

H 



146 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



vice and immorality that prevailed seemed to spring from 
our fallen nature — and that the divine mission of the 
church was to grapple with the ignorance and indifference 
of men — to elevate them above the world in which they 
lived, and perfect them for a higher and a purer sphere — by 
presenting the light of revealed religion and developing 
the true principles of morality, and unfolding the glorious 
promises of the gospel of Christ — that with that view she 
ought to give all her energies to the enlightening the ig- 
norance and darkness that prevail — that carefully avoiding 
the unintelligible, or whatever was not calculated to instruct, 
she should order all things so as to realize the apostle's 
maxim, " let all things be done to edification" — that 
avoiding everything that was beyond the capacities of the 
masses of mankind, she should arrange all things in the 
worship of God, so as to be most adapted for the instruc- 
tion of the ignorant, and for the edification of the many, 
and for the elevation of all, thus realizing the true mission 
of the church of Christ as the great Teacher of mankind. 

All this was at once assented to. I therefore went on 
to say, that it was on this principle that the church of 
England, and all the Protestant churches, acted in all their 
arrangements for public worship. The Holy Scriptures are 
read publicly for the divine teaching of the people. Ex- 
hortations, expositions, sermons are added to illustrate, 
enforce and apply the word of God. The Lord's Supper, 
which represents and teaches how the Saviour died on the 
cross for the salvation of His people — the Baptism, which 
symbolises and teaches that as water cleanses the outward 
body, so the Holy Spirit must wash and cleanse the inner 
and outer life alike from the love and practice of sin — these 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 147 



sacramental rites, with all the praises and thanksgivings 
and intercessions and prayers, are expressed in the clearest 
and simplest language, in the common language of the 
people, so that all may hear and understand, and be in- 
structed and edified. The Protestant churches thus realize 
the mission of the church as the great Teacher of man- 
kind. But the church of Rome presents a striking con- 
trast to all this. All her services for Baptism, for the 
Lord's Supper, for the sacrifice of the mass, and all her 
sacramental rites, are conducted in the Latin language. 
And the consequence is that in her public worship every- 
thing is above and beyond the comprehension of the masses 
of her people, and therefore cannot tend to their enlighten- 
ment or edification. 

It was at once acknowledged that all this was true ; at 
least, that these services being in the Latin language, were 
unintelligible to the people; but, it was added, that although 
the people did not understand the words, that is, the 
prayers, yet they were so well instructed in the nature of 
these services that they understood them in all that was 
necessary, and could piously and devoutly join in them, not 
perhaps, saying the very same prayers, but still saying 
some prayers of their own, and thus joining in the holy 
mysteries with devotion and profit. 

I replied, that there could be no doubt of the deep, 
earnest, heartfelt devotion of many who attended these 
services, however unintelligible. I had lived too much 
among Roman Catholics and seen too much of their system, 
not to know and feel that there was true-hearted and 
humble devotion among many. But, I added, that this 
was different from the system, and, as I believed, despite 
H 2 



148 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



of the system. The result — the natural result of this sys- 
tem is, that as the congregation cannot understand the 
Latin liturgy, they supply themselves with other and totally 
different liturgies in their own language. One has " The 
Garden of the Soul," and another <c The Key to Heaven; " 
some employ " The Path to Paradise," and others " The 
Sacred Heart." Every member supplies himself with such 
liturgical or devotional book as may suit his peculiar taste, 
each being different from the other, and all agreeing only 
in being totally different from the service as performed by 
the officiating priest at the altar; no two forms of prayer in 
these books being the same, and all being different from 
the authorised liturgy, the Latin liturgy, made use of by the 
priest ! A state of things like this, is wholly incapable of 
instructing or edifying the people. They hear it, but they 
do not comprehend it. They see it, but they do not un- 
derstand it. They attend it, but they do not take part in 
it. And the consequence is, that being utterly unconscious 
of what is saying at the altar, it has become the universal 
practice to ring a little bell to give notice to the congrega- 
tion when the Host is about to be elevated, and they are to 
prostrate themselves to adore it ! They seem to have no 
better way of knowing the moment — not knowing the lan- 
guage of the service — than the ringing of a little bell ! 

I have always found this method of reasoning have its 
natural influence on all who are capable of being influenced 
by anything. In general, Roman Catholics of mind and 
feeling and education express their regret that such a 
svstem should be retained in their church. My present 
companion was frank and open on the point, adding, how- 
ever, that it was merely a matter of discipline and not a 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 149 



matter of faith ; and that the pope could at any time com- 
mand a change, by which all the services should be cele- 
brated in the common language of every country. 

To this the reply was obvious, and I could not hesitate 
in making it, — namely, that this apology only makes the 
matter worse than before ; 'for, if the practice were one of 
necessity, one that was unalterable, there would be no need 
of further excuse ; but when it is admitted that there is no 
such necessity — that it is in the power of the pontiff to 
alter it, then the objection becomes still more fatal against 
a system so unreasonable and unedifying and wrong in 
itself, and which might be so easily reformed if they would. 

When the argument was in this position I urged that 
the pope has no right to enforce a practice, not only objec- 
tionable and unedifying in itself, but directly contrary to 
the plain language of Holy Scripture. And then, opening 
the volume, I commenced by reading the second chapter of 
the Acts of the Apostles, from the first to the eleventh 
verses. — " And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, 
they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly 
there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty 
wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of 
fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all 
filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other 
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there 
were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every 
nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, 
the multitude came together, and were confounded, because 
that every man heard them speak in his own language. 
And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to 



150 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans ? 
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein 
we were born ? Parthian s, and Medes, and Elamites, and 
the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappa- 
docia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in 
Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and 
strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Ara- 
bians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful 
works of God." The argument on this is, that it details 
that wonderful event by which the foundations of the 
Christian church were laid — the gift of tongues. Our Lord 
had commanded His apostles to go forth and preach the 
gospel to every nation, teaching them and baptising them. 
And now, to enable them to do this, the Holy Spirit shed 
on them this miraculous gift of being able to understand 
and speak all the languages of the nations among whom 
they were to preach, and teach, and baptise. The wonder- 
ful character of this miracle was immediately perceptible. 
And " every man heard them speak in their own language, 
and they were all amazed and marvelled, saying — How hear 
we every man in our own tongue wherein we were born? — 
we do hear them speak in our own tongues the wonderful 
works of God." Here was the fundamental miracle of the 
Christian church, and for any particular or national church, 
as that of Rome, to prohibit the use of a known tongue 
in the services of public worship — to compel the service 
of the Lord's Supper, which preaches " the wonderful 
work" of the dying Saviour — to compel the administration 
of Baptism, which teaches "the wonderful work" of the 
Holy Spirit — to compel these to be celebrated in the Latin 
language instead of the common language of the people, 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 151 



is an act in direct contradiction of this fundamental miracle 
of the Christian church. It was plainly intended that 
every country should enjoy the ministrations of Christ's 
church in the language of the country, and not in a dead, 
unknown tongue, which is not spoken in any one country 
on the face of God's wide creation. But, instead^ of this, 
and against this, which clearly implies, not a uniformity but 
a diversity of languages, the church of Rome requires, 
that whether in Italy or in Spain, whether in France or in 
Ireland, whether among the Hottentots of Africa, among 
the Chinese of Asia, or the Red Indians of America, the 
great services — all the sacramental services of the church 
shall be administered in the Latin language, so that none 
can understand, none can be edified, and all the services 
seem a mysterious charm and unintelligible incantation. If 
it had been the will of God that all the services of His 
church were to be in Latin, He could have given the single 
gift of the Latin tongue. That alone had sufficed and there 
was no need of the gifts of other tongues. 

I have never known any serious attempt to answer this 
argument from the gift of tongues. I have indeed known 
various efforts to excuse the Latin service, but I have never 
known any attempt worth the name of an answer to this 
argument itself. There was no attempt on the present oc- 
casion, I therefore opened the fourteenth chapter of 1 Cor. 
and read, — " Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking 
with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak 
to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophe- 
sying or by doctrine ? And even things without life giving 
sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction 
in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or 



152 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



harped ? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who 
shall prepare himself to the battle ? So likewise ye, ex- 
cept ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, 
how shall it be known what is spoken ? for ye shall speak 
into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices 
in the world, and none of them is without signification. 
Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall 
be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh 
shall be a barbarian unto me." On this I remarked that 
the Apostle is alluding to the improper exercise of the gift 
of tongues, and reproving those who in the church used an 
unknown tongue. He argues from musical instruments, 
which must be intelligently played, in order to yield real 
harmony. He argues from the trumpet guiding armies in 
the battle-field, that if the sound be not understood, it could 
not be obeyed ; and so if the trumpet of the gospel be not 
intelligible, it cannot be profitable in leading to the warfare 
against sin. And finally he states that so long as the 
minister of the church employs an unknown language, the 
minister and the people will be no better than barbarians, 
that is, non-intelligent and unintelligible to each other. 

To this it was objected that all this referred to the preach- 
ing of the gospel to the people, — that with that view'the gift 
of speaking in unknown tongues was given, and accordingly 
in the church of Rome, they always and everywhere preached 
in the common language of the people, — that all this scrip- 
ture referred to preaching and to praying, not to religious 
services. 

To this I at once answered that the argument of the 
apostles goes further than this, applying it to prayer and 
praise, as well as to preaching and teaching ; he says, " For 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 153 



if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my 
understanding is unfruitful. What is it then ? I will pray 
with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also : 
I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the under- 
standing also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, 
how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say 
Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not 
what thou sayest ? For thou verily givest thanks well, but 
the other is not edified," Here he applies the argument 
to prayer and praise, which constitute the main elements of 
public worship, and while he urges that the language should 
be understood, he asks in a tone that shows he felt his 
question was unanswerable, " When thou shalt bless with 
the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the un- 
learned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing that he 
understandeth not what thou sayest 1 " The apostle seems 
never to have thought of the invention of a little bell to be 
rung, that the unlearned might know, when they were to 
say this Amen to a prayer or thanksgiving, which they did 
not understand ! My companion smiled at this, shook his 
head and said it was true, — too true. I then continued, say- 
ing that the apostle goes yet further than this, in his argu- 
ment against the system ; for he says, " I thank my God, I 
speak with tongues more than ye all : Yet in the church I 
had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by 
my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousands 
words in an unknown tongue. Brethren, be not children 
in understanding : howbeit in malice be ye children, but in 
understanding be men. In the law it is written, With men 
of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this 
people ; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith 
H 5 



154 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them 
that believe, but to them that believe not ; but prophesying 
serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which 
believe. If therefore the whole church be come together 
into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there shall 
come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they 
not say ye are mad ? But if all prophesy, and there come 
in one that belie veth not, or one that is unlearned, he is 
convinced of all, he is judged of all : and thus are the 
secrets of his heart made manifest ; and so falling down 
on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in 
you of a truth. 5 ' In all this he states, that with all his 
knowledge of languages, he preferred to say five words in 
an intelligible language than a thousand which were un- 
known, or not understood. And if, as so many Romanists 
imagine, that the five words alluded to are hoc enim est 
corpus meum — "for this is my body," — the five mystic words 
by which the tran substantiation is effected in the mass, it will 
prove that the Canon of the mass should especially be read 
in a language known and understood by the people. In- 
deed the apostle adds, verse 20, that it seemed a very 
childish thing, and inconsistent with the understanding of 
thinking men, that this practice should be permitted : and 
he implies, verse 21, that such a practice was a curse and 
not a blessing. And he finally contrasts the two systems 
in their natural effects. In a service in an unknown tongue 
an unlearned man hears nothing but unintelligible sounds, 
and may well say that they are mad ; while in a service in 
the known language of the people, he enters, hears, and 
understands, and the message of the gospel convinces him 
of his sins, and leads him to prayer and the worship of 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 155 



God. The argument of the apostle is thus plain and 
cogent throughout, It is utterly inconsistent with the 
practice of the church of Rome in her Latin services ; and 
however ingenious men may invent ingenious apologies 
and excuses for her practice, it must be admitted that her 
practice is directly opposed to the divine authority. 

Among intelligent and candid Roman catholics, I have 
never known an attempt to get rid of this argument of the 
apostle : I have often pressed it, and often with the same 
effect. They feel it fully, and cannot answer it. But in- 
stead of yielding to it, instead of bowing humbly and obe- 
diently to the divine authority, they struggle against, and 
they endeavour to shew that, notwithstanding the judgment 
of the apostle, there are some advantages in their Latin ser- 
vices. This, as might be expected, was the course pur- 
sued by my companion on the present occasion. He said 
that the universal use of Latin tends to unity or uniformitv 
of worship, so as that, let a Roman catholic travel where 
he may, he will be sure to find precisely the same form of 
worship, the same prayers, and in the same language — that 
by having the mass, and all the sacramental services always 
in the Latin language ; whether in China or Peru, whe- 
ther in Canada or Algeria, whether in Spain or England, 
whether among the Indians of America or the peasantry of 
Ireland, the traveller will always find the services the same. 
Wherever the stranger wanders, wherever the emigrant 
settles, he hears the same well-known words, he hears the 
catholic church speaking to him in the same words ; words 
unintelligible perhaps, but still pleasant, because still the 
same ; he had heard them and loved them in his own land 
— always in the Latin language, always the same. 



156 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



He spoke with vivacity. His thoughts were with some 
of his family, who had emigrated and were far away. He 
had travelled much, and seen much as a soldier in his youth. 
He was now contemplating emigration to join those who 
had gone before, to prepare the way. All this gave point 
and feeling to his words. 

I said in reply, that whatever conveniences might be sup- 
posed to be connected with the practice, they could not ex- 
cuse and certainly could not justify, a practice so plainly 
contrary to the clear language of Holy Scripture. And 
certainly a problematical convenience to a solitary traveller 
or a lonely emigrant was an insufficient justification. Tra- 
vellers and emigrants will always be very few compared with 
the multitude. And, according to this argument, the vast 
multitude is inconvenienced for the sake of the few — the 
whole population is to be inconvenienced by having wor- 
ship celebrated in an unknown language which no one un- 
derstands, and all for the convenience of a few travellers 
or emigrants ! Such an argument implies that for the con- 
venience of a few Spanish travellers or settlers in England, 
the whole population of England is to be inconvenienced by 
having their religious services in a language unintelligible 
to them — that for the convenience of a few Italian travellers 
or emigrants in Germany, the whole population of Germany 
must endure the inconvenience of their public worship 
being in a language they cannot understand — that for the 
convenience of some Irish travellers or emigrants to Ame- 
rica, the whole people of America must be subjected to the 
inconvenience of the Latin liturgy. This indeed, would be 
sacrificing the interests of the many, to the convenience of 
the few — sacrificing a whole population, to the wishes of a 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 157 



few travellers or emigrants. And, after all, I added, it 
could be no real or substantial advantage even to them. 
For, if a Spaniard, travelling or settling in England, could 
not understand a service in English, neither could he un- 
derstand it in Latin. And although an Italian traveller 
or settler in Germany might not comprehend a service in 
German, yet he would be in the very same difficulty as 
not understanding a service in Latin. And as to an Irish 
traveller or emigrant in America, whether he could or could 
not understand an English service, he certainly would not 
find it more intelligible by finding it in Latin. And thus this 
convenience of a Latin service amounts simply to this — that 
wherever the traveller wanders, or the emigrant settles, he 
must find the services of his church, in a language which 
he does not understand ! 

This mode of meeting his argument, did not seem to be 
palatable ; perhaps it touched too closely his personal feel- 
ings respecting emigrants ; he certainly took no notice of it, 
bat immediately suggested another argument, one of very 
frequent use among the members of the church of Rome. 

He argued, that it had been the universal practice of the 
Church — that at all ages, and in all places the liturgies were 
in the Latin tongue — that Latin was the language of the 
church, and that it was a part of the communion of saints 
that the church in the present age should be found speak- 
ing to her children in the very same accents she had used 
in former ages, and that it belonged to the perpetuity and 
unchangeableness of the church to continue for ever her 
services in the same language. And yet farther it was ar- 
gued, that this use of the Latin tongue thus became an ar- 
gument in favour of the church of Rome ; as being a sign 



158 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



that she is still the same she ever was — the Holy Catholic 
Church. 

I answered this, by saying that it was utterly erroneous, — 
altogether wrong and untrue, to say that this was at all times 
and all places the universal practice of the church. The 
church of Jesus Christ commenced in Jerusalem ; and all 
the gospels and epistles were written in Greek, and it was 
therefore probable that those, who like the apostles, usually 
wrote in Greek, spoke and prayed, and preached also in 
Greek. Indeed it is very certain, that all the earliest or 
primitive churches had their services in Greek ; for all the 
most ancient liturgies, which have come down to us, have 
been in the Greek language. And to this day the Greek 
church, the Armenian church, the Coptic christians, the 
Nestorian christians, the Syrian christians, and all the East- 
ern churches, have their liturgies in the languages of the 
East and not one of them use the Latin. [I could affirm 
this in some respect on personal knowledge, for I have 
heard the communion-services or liturgies of these Eastern 
churches in five different forms and languages by the priests 
of so many different churches. A word of Latin was not 
used by any of them.] It is very true, I added, that in the 
Western or Latin churches, inasmuch as the language of 
Western Europe was more Latin than any other, so the 
Latin was more generally used in their sacred services. It 
was the language then best understood, and therefore it 
was the language best to be used. It was the language of 
Rome and Italy and other countries, and was therefore the 
fittest language for the liturgies of those countries. But 
so far was this from being uniform, that we know of Spain, 
France, and England having different liturgies, and some 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 159 



even in different languages. Even in Italy herself, her 
liturgies were not uniformly the same, and the fact is 
certain, that even there, in those parts of Italy that were 
colonized from Greece, the services were in the Greek lan- 
guage. In process of time — in process of some centuries, 
all those differences were gradually suppressed, and the 
church of Rome was enabled to impose her Latin liturgy 
upon all, even after the Latin ceased to be a spoken lan- 
guage. For some centuries the Latin language has dis- 
appeared from Europe, but the church of Rome retains the 
old and exploded tongue ; and this is the real cause of the 
mass and other services being still in Latin — a language 
not understood by the people of any country in the world. 
The few learned may know it. The masses of the people 
do not understand one word of it. 

My friend demurred to this. He did not, and he said 
with great courtesy, that he would not of course set his 
word against mine, but that he had read, that Latin was 
always the language of the Church of Rome. But, he 
added, that the people found no inconvenience in it, because 
they had translations, and a great variety of pious books, 
by means of which they could follow the priest, and under- 
stand the service ; and he appealed to my own knowledge 
of the fact, as having often seen the members of the Ro- 
man Catholic congregations with their books, as devoutly 
reading during service, as the members of Protestant con- 
gregations. 

My reply to this, was, that I certainly had seen many 
Roman Catholics reading their books in their churches, 
but not reading the service or liturgy of their church — not 
following or reading with the officiating priest, either the 



160 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS, 



original, or a translation. I reminded him, of there being 
no book of Common Prayer among them, there being no 
book of Common Prayer authorized by the church of 
Rome, — no authorized liturgy for the laity — and no au- 
thorized translation of the service of the mass, in any 
language. Each member selects any volume of devo- 
tions, or any compilations of prayers, that may be most 
suitable to his taste. There are of course, great varieties of 
these, none of them being authorized by the church of 
Rome, and each member selecting such private compilation 
of private prayers, takes it to his place of worship, and occu- 
pies himself in these prayers, while the priest at the altar is 
reciting a form of prayers of a totally different character. [I 
have myself observed at Rome, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, 
Monks, Laymen, and Women. I have myself looked into 
their books at such devotions, and have sometimes read 
with them out of the same book of prayers. I have seen 
one reading a psalm, another reading a prayer, some reading 
a litany, others reading a legend in the breviary, all devout 
and intent in their isolated way, but all reading what was 
not only different from each other, but altogether different 
from the priest officiating at the altar ! They have no idea 
of the unity of worship, of the communion of prayer as it 
exists among us. It is among them just as it would be 
among us, if, while the minister was reading the litany, one 
portion of the congregation was reading the communion-ser- 
vice, and another portion was reading the morning prayer, 
and others poring over the forms for marriage or for bap- 
tism ; or as if, while the minister was reading a chapter from 
the gospels, some of the congregation were reading the 
prophets, and others studying the epistles, or perhaps some 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 161 



reading Nelson's " Fasts and Festivals," while others were 
perusing Doddridge's "Rise and Progress." This is the prac- 
tice in the church of Rome, a practice so general as that it 
may he called universal.] There is, perhaps, scarcely one 
individual in the whole congregation who reads the trans- 
lation of the services, so as to enable him to understand the 
service and follow the priest who officiates. But many a 
one thinks he does so, for in many of their devotional books 
there are prayers entitled "prayers that may be said during 
the mass," and in their simplicity, they imagine these to 
be translations of the service of the mass. They are totally 
different — different in their form, and no less different in 
their object. The very title of those prayers implies this 
difference, and therefore it is a simple fiction to assert that 
there is no inconvenience in the latin services on the ground 
that they have translations in their prayer-books, to enable 
them to follow and understand. 

Having appealed to the experience and knowledge of my 
companion on this point, he at once frankly acknowledged 
it. He said, they generally used a variety of prayer-books, 
but that in most of them, there was at the end a translation 
of the mass-service, which they could read if they wished, 
but that it was not their custom, as every one prayed for 
himself, and sometimes liked his own prayer-book better 
than the translation. He then added, that he had lately 
read another reason for the Latin tongue. 

It was to the effect that it presented a graceful and beau- 
tiful conception — unity of language in worship. The church 
was to be a universal brotherhood or society, extending 
through the whole world — comprehending men of every 
color, and of every clime, and of every tongue — -and that 



162 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



the church of Rome presented the glorious spectacle of 
such a brotherhood or society, speaking to all these in one 
and the same language, and habituating all these to a 
worship in which they all used only one common language. 
However separated in color or climate, by distance or by 
customs, in nature or in language, yet here in the highest 
of all acts of worship they were united, for every where 
there was only the one language. It was an anticipation of 
heaven, where all would yet speak but one language. 

I replied that all this was only a romantic and fanciful 
idea, that might seem grand and beautiful to some, for 
there was no accounting for tastes, but was neither prac- 
tical nor profitable. That the God of the universe per- 
mitted for wise purposes of his own, a diversity of lan- 
guages among the nations in speaking of Him and of His 
works, and He certainly has given no reason to suppose 
that he has departed from this in the religious worship of 
his people. And as to a unity of language, it leads to a 
unity of unintelligibility, for as the Latin tongue is not the 
native tongue of any one people in the world, so the unity 
— the real unity which is obtained by it, is the fact that no 
people in the world shall understand it — a unity of being 
unintelligible ! And this brotherhood or society is pre- 
sented a spectacle before men and angels, as one, which 
for the sake of unity of language, has adopted a system 
which establishes them in a unity of non-intelligent wor- 
shippers ! 

I added that there was a far nobler and magnificent 
spectacle in looking upon the church as extending herself 
through every tongue, and nation, and people, and con- 
templating the children of the Saviour — the men of every 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 163 



hue and every land — those who look upon the mighty ice- 
bergs of the frozen north, those who breathe the perfumes 
of the sunny south, those who wander beside the ancient 
Euphrates, or dwell along the banks of the aged Nile, or 
hunt among the prairies of the gigantic Mississippi, the 
children of the oak, or the children of the palm-tree — con- 
templating all these, lifting up holy hands and grateful hearts 
and prayerful spirits, and believing minds, and trustful 
natures to Him, who has loved them, and given himself 
for them. And doing all this with unity of heart and soul, 
each in his own tongue, and in his own way, and in his 
own land, and among his own friends ; in all the diversity 
of language, and color of face, as well as of climate and of 
country. This seems to me a far more beautiful and nobler 
spectacle, and is a more holy, touching and acceptable 
sight in the eyes of Him with whom we have to do, than a 
mere unity of language, especially of a language which is 
not understood in any nation of the world — a unity of non- 
intelligent worshippers ! 

He shook his head at this, as if unwilling to receive it, 
but he offered nothing in reply. He was silent. With a 
few words on the necessity of religion being spiritual rather 
than ceremonial, and internal rather than external — as 
wrought in us and practised by us, rather than an affair 
transacted by some priesthood for us, we parted. 

It is very seldom that the members of the church of 
Rome advance any further apology for this practice. In 
those countries, however, as Ireland and Italy, where they 
are in the deepest darkness, and where they regard religion 
as a matter which belongs not to the laity, but to the 
clergy, and which is to be managed by the latter, for, and 



164 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



in behalf of the former — a matter in which everything that 
is essential is done for them and not by them — a matter 
which is of external ceremonial, rather than internal opera- 
tion — they sometimes argue that as the mass is a sacrifice, 
not done by them, but for them, so there can be no necessity 
for their understanding it. And they endeavor to justify 
this by alluding to the fact mentioned in the Gospel narra- 
tive, where Zechariah is described as entering the temple to 
burn incense, while all the people were waiting without, 
neither understanding nor seeing what he did. 

The answer to this reference to the Gospel narrative is 
that the burning incense in the holy place was a service 
appertaining to the priest alone. Those priests were typical 
persons, and their incense was a typical rite ; and had no 
reference whatever to the people who waited without. 
They had no part in it, and had nothing to do with it. 
Those priests burning incense within the holy place were 
the types of those Christian persons — those faithful ones 
whom an apostle calls " a holy priesthood." They were 
the types of all true believers, who live in a spirit of prayer, 
presenting their prayers for ever in " the holy place " of 
the Church of Christ. But this had no reference to the 
people who were waiting without. They never saw it. 
They never had part in it, and as these were not their 
prayers nor words, so there was nothing for them to know 
or understand. Indeed, if the text proves anything, it 
proves too much, for it would prove that if the mass be 
anything of this nature, there is no necessity or use in the 
people seeing it, hearing it, attending or being present at 
it. They may as well stay without, and never approach it 
at all ! And as for the argument that the mass is a sacri- 



THE USE OF AN UNKNOWN LANGUAGE. 165 



fice, it is at once met by the simple denial of such a doctrine; 
but even if it were all they assert, it could not justify the 
practice of the church of Rome, for in a sacrifice accord- 
ing to the Levitical law, the person who offered it had part 
in the act, as large a part as the priest ; for he was to bring 
the victim to the door of the tabernacle where the altar 
was, he was to present the victim as his substitute, thereby 
shewing his belief in " the Lamb of God," by whom as 
his substitute all his sins were atoned for ; he was to lay his 
hands upon its head, so as to identify himself universally 
with it, and acknowledge his sins over it, as acknowledging 
his sins to his Saviour, and there he was to slay the vic- 
tim, shewing his faith in the truth, that his salvation is 
only in the death of Him who died, " the just for the unjust, 
that he might bring us to God." It was then that the priest, 
after having accepted it as his substitute, was to collect the 
blood and sprinkle it as directed by the law, shewing that 
all our salvation is from the sprinkling of blood of " the 
Lamb of God." In all this, the persons who offered the 
sacrifice had more to do, and had a larger share in the 
ceremony than the priest himself. And besides this, there 
was no form of words, there were no form of prayers, 
there were no forms of thanksgiving, there was nothing of 
the kind, so that no parallel can be drawn from these in 
favour of Latin services connected with the mass, to which 
the sacrifices presented no parallel whatever. 

This argument however, is now seldom urged except 
among those who regard religion as a matter belonging to 
the clergy and not to the people. In an age of light and 
of knowledge like the present, and in a country like this ; 
in which every man feels he must understand all he is 



166 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



required to do, and in which it is universally felt that all 
worship of God on the part of intelligent creatures ought 
to be an intelligent worship, according to our Lord's words, 
" God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship 
him in spirit and in truth," it would never do to argue 
that there is no need for the people to understand the 
prayers that constitute their worship. It would be argu- 
ing a foregone conclusion to discuss it. 

I have generally found that in conversation, our opponents 
are perplexed and embarrassed by this practice of using 
the Latin language. This perplexity and embarrassment 
are increased where the members of the church of Rome 
— and they are many — have felt and have reprobated the 
mischief of the practice, its unedifying nature, and the 
scandal it has caused, by giving us so strong a ground of 
exception against them. It is a subject of constant regret 
amongst themselves. And in countries like these, where 
there is so much reflex light from intelligent Protestantism, 
penetrating even the dimness of Romanism, some of the 
bishops have felt themselves obliged to yield, and have 
allowed the Epistles and Gospels sometimes to be read in 
English, thus giving a small — a very small instalment of their 
demands. And as this did not altogether satisfy, they have 
also allowed that at other hours, where there is not a mass 
or any sacramental service, or any of the authorized ser- 
vices, the people may have prayers, unauthorized prayers in 
English, either with or without the attendance of a priest ; 
and the people are cajoled out of a translation of their 
authorized liturgies by the use, at uncanonical hours, of 
unauthorized forms in English ! 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 



THE SUPPOSED ADVANTAGE OF PRAYER TO THE SAINTS OBJECTION 

ARISING FROM THE MEDIATORSHIP OF CHRIST HOW CAN THE 

SAINTS HEAR OUR PRAYERS THE PROTESTANT VIEW OF THE 

SAINTS CONTRASTED WITH THAT OF THE ROMANISTS THE JOY 

OF ANGELS AT THE SINNER's REPENTANCE INCONSISTENCY OF 

THE ROMISH THEORY THEIR SUPPOSED SYMPATHY WITH US 

THE ORIGIN OF THE SYSTEM OF ROME THE TRUE SOURCE OF 

COMFORT IN THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 

It was in conversation with a man of high moral character, 
that I took the opportunity of enquiring into the principle 
of his morality. He was a man of very high reputation for 
religious devotion, there was a religiousness about him 
that seemed to give a colour to all he did ; so that in all his 
every-day dealings, and in the ordinary affairs of human 
life, in all his intercourse with his fellow-men, there was 
a deep sense of religion, a thorough and earnest religious- 
ness that ensured honesty, integrity, frankness, kindness, 
and charity. He was a man universally and deservedly re- 
spected ; for while religion was his profession, it was also 
his practice, a religion that whether right or wrong, — and 
I feel and know it was wrong, — was real, unobtrusive, and 



168 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



simple. He was a man belonging to the class of small 
farmers, cultivating his holding, which though small was 
amply sufficient to supply all his wants, and those of his 
family ; so that he held a position which made him, in con- 
nection with his character, an independent and respected man. 

It was in conversing with this excellent man, in whom I 
felt no ordinary interest as a Roman Catholic, that I asked 
him to explain to me how it was that he was enabled to 
resist the temptations to which so many others around him 
were constantly yielding. I knew the temptations of those 
around him, I knew they too often yielded and fell into 
sin, and I was aware that this man had been enabled to 
escape them. I asked the question frankly and he answered 
as frankly. 

He said that he had devoted himself to St. Peter, the 
prince of the apostles, upon whom, as the Rock, our 
blessed Lord had built the church ; and that he endeavoured 
to live as if St. Peter was beside him — that he endeavoured 
always to realize the constant presence of that saint — that 
his earnest desire was to avoid doing anything that might 
possibly displease him. He stated that whenever he was 
under temptation — whenever there was a danger of his 
yielding to any sin, he immediately called to mind the 
presence of that apostle, and asked himself the question, 
whether it might not be displeasing to him ; and he added, 
that it was his experience, that the thought of giving grief 
or sorrow to St. Peter, was always able to induce him to 
resist the temptation and escape the sin. 

This was his own account of the matter. And he was 
one who was not deficient either in shrewdness or intelli- 
gence. I had known some instances of persons bearing 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 



169 



the same, precisely the same, feeling towards the Virgin 
Mary, in reference to whom such cases are far from un- 
common; but I do not recollect an instance so peculiar as 
this, where everything was centered in St. Peter, and where 
there was not a word, and apparently not even a thought, 
of the Deity. 

I therefore remarked to him, though with all gentleness, 
that he seemed to me to have substituted St. Peter for his 
Saviour and his God ; — that as it seemed to me all true 
religion required of us to shew this religiousness of feeling 
towards Christ, to realize his presence, and seek his favor, 
and to shrink from the thought of doing anything that 
could wound the love of so loving a Saviour — that he, 
instead of this, had exalted Peter to the place of Christ — 
had substituted the creature for the Creator — and thus prac- 
tically had made Peter his Saviour and his God. 

He replied that he had no such intention —that such 
intention would be the last thing in his thoughts — that he 
was an unlearned man, and could not enter into the niceties 
of such questions, but that he knew by experience that by 
devoting himself to St. Peter, and by thinking of him in 
the time of temptation, he was enabled to escape. And 
he was therefore sure that such devotedness on his part 
could not be deemed dishonoring to God. 

I endeavoured to impress on him that it was a renuncia- 
tion of all true and right-minded allegiance to our earthly 
sovereign — either to dethrone him on one hand, or to exalt 
a mere subject, on the other, substituting him in the place of 
the sovereign, rendering to this subject the honor and the 
homage, and the obedience, and the loyalty, that right- 
fully belonged only to the sovereign — that the principle 

I 



170 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



which he had expressed was thus practically dethroning 
the King of kings, by placing another, and that other a 
fallen and sinful creature, on the throne : I added, that he 
had touched one of the great essential differences between 
the church of England and the church of Rome. The one 
always exalting the Saviour, the other exalting the saints ; 
the one worshipping the Creator, the other substituting the 
creature in his stead. 

I cannot say that he seemed at all impressed with what 
I thus stated, yet he had listened with evident interest and 
respect, as indeed, he habitually did whenever I conversed 
with him. So I remarked to him, that the success or ex- 
perience, as he called it, of his system, might perhaps, be 
accounted for by his thoughts being turned away from the 
temptation, which he dreaded. I told him that my own 
habit was that whenever I felt tempted to murmur, repine, 
or give way to any other temptation, I endeavoured to 
bring my thoughts to some precious promise of the word 
of God, and then by filling my mind with thoughts of the 
love or the gentleness, or the sufferings, or the death of 
Christ — filling my mind with the memory of his gracious 
words and gentle invitations, and precious promises — filling 
my mind with thoughts of high hopes and a glorious future 
— I found that such thoughts of Christ shut out the 
thoughts of evil, and thus the temptation was overcome 
by these holy thoughts, suggested by the Holy Spirit, who 
was ever ready to strengthen the children of God. 

He seemed to me to like this mode of dealing with 
temptation, and therefore after pressing it somewhat more, 
I took occasion to ask him, how he could suppose St. Peter 
could know his thoughts and temptations, so as to help 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 



171 



him in his time of need. If, I added, we come to God — 
to Christ, there is no difficulty. The omnipresence, the 
omniscience, and the omnipotence of Him, " whom the 
heaven of heavens cannot contain/' explain everything in 
reference to Him. But Peter was merely a man, and 
though a sainted, that is, a holy man, yet he is now in 
heaven, and cannot see the heart, or know the thoughts, or 
hear the prayers of his votaries on earth. 

He seemed at first to think lightly of this, as if he had 
always thought it a matter of course, that the saint in 
heaven could know the thoughts and see the devotion and 
hear the prayers of his votaries on earth. His manner and 
his first natural expressions shewed that he had always 
assumed this in his mind — that he had always taken it for 
granted — that a doubt of it had never passed over his 
thoughts. But after a few moments there seemed to pass 
over him a cloud, and he was silent and thoughtful. I 
saw the cause and therefore urged the point further, saying 
that it seemed to me unreasonable and impossible, that 
when men were praying in China, in Canada, in Egypt, in 
Russia, in Italy, in England, to one and the same saint in 
heaven, and at one and the same time — when not a few 
but many millions were so engaged — it seemed, I said, 
unreasonable and impossible, that the saint should hear and 
understand them all. I added, that as prayer was not 
merely the utterance of words that could be heard, but was 
often the sigh and wish and aspiration of the soul, unspoken 
and unheard, so it was impossible to see and know the 
devotedness or the worship of any votaries, without know- 
ing the secret thoughts, the minds, and hearts of all ; so as 
to be able to judge of the earnestness, the sincerity, the 
I 2 



172 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



piety, the religiousness of the parties. There can be no 
use in praying to the saint, unless he is able, in the height, 
and glory, and happiness of heaven, to see, and hear, and 
know all —not some, but all — that passes in the hearts and 
minds of men on earth. And he must also know all their 
trials, weaknesses, temptations, so as to know all the circum- 
stances that aggravate their sins, and all the peculiarities that 
extenuate their failings. There is no such difficulty in refer- 
ence to Him of whom it is said — " He searcheth the heart 
and trieth the reins," and again — " Thou knowest all 
things," and again — " All things are naked and open be- 
fore the eyes of him with whom we have to do." This is 
true of the great Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent 
Spirit, and therefore, we can come to him in prayer, in the 
fullest certainty of his being able both to hear and to answer. 
But as to any saint in heaven, finite creature as he must be, 
to enrobe him with such attributes, would be a worshipping 
the creature as the Creator — it would be an investing him 
with the essence of the Godhead. 

He was a man of too much intelligence not to see the 
importance of this consideration ; and he had too much 
simplicity not to acknowledge the difficulty that it threw in 
the way of his theory. But it was apparent from what he 
said that he had entertained some very high imaginings 
about the power and holiness and privileges of the saints, 
and was jealous of an argument which went to strip them 
of that which was habitually associated in his mind with 
all his ideas of the saints. And he asked me earnestly, 
whether I really thought it possible they could be saints in 
glory and yet be unacquainted with all below. 

I replied, that I had evidently far higher ideas of the 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 



173 



happiness and glory of the saints in heaven, than he seemed 
to entertain, and that it was he who was depriving them of 
their truest and loftiest privileges and blessedness. 

He seemed unable to understand this without explana- 
tion, and he asked me to explain myself, for he had always 
felt that the church of Rome paid infinitely more reverence 
to the saints, than did the Protestant church ; for that Pro- 
testants neither pray to them, nor to their pictures, nor 
kneel'to them, and seem to think no more of them, than if 
there were no saints whatever in glory. 

I stated in reply, with every expression of kindness and 
gentleness to those who live in error, from having been long 
habituated to it from their earliest childhood, that Roman 
Catholics seemed to me to think too poorly, too meanly of 
the state of the saints, and that the Protestants seemed on 
the other hand to regard them in a far higher light. I said 
that we believed from some passages in the Holy Scriptures 
that the saints are in heaven — that they are in the company 
of Jesus Christ — that they are in the very presence of God 
— that there, amidst a countless multitude of angels and of 
redeemed souls, they live in a state of profound adoration, 
and blessing and praise, ever looking upon God, praising his 
goodness, wondering at his glories, and loving him as the 
object of all holy love. There they are in a state of the 
most perfect holiness, and in the enjoyment of an unuttera- 
ble happiness. No cloud can even dim the brightness of 
God's countenance. No shadow can ever pass over their 
thoughts to sadden them. No thought or no vision can 
ever come over their happy and blessed minds that could 
impair their perfect happiness and perfect blessedness, for 
there all was happiness and blessedness, amidst scenes of the 



174 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



purest holiness, and if ever there were thoughts of the world 
and the scenes and the homes they had left for ever, it was 
only to make them more full of thankfulness, and gratitude 
to Him, who had redeemed them, and washed them in His 
blood, and had purchased for them this glorious inheritance, 
so that their whole mind is filled with the thought of God, 
and their whole heart filled with the love of God. 

I then read several passages of Scripture, as Rev. vii. 
9 — 17: also xxi. 3 — 5: also xxii. 1 — 5. And after we 
had talked pleasantly and profitably on the glorious hopes 
of the Christian, I asked him whether he did not think that 
we Protestants held very high and lofty ideas of the glory 
and blessedness of the saints ? He seemed to feel it, for he 
had entered very fully into all I said. 

I therefore took the occasion to say, that I thought it 
would mar and injure all this happiness, if the saints were 
to see, and hear, and know all that was passing on earth. 
If a father or a mother could look down, and see and know 
all the sins, the follies, the sorrows, and the shame of their 
children — if they could see and know all the troubles and 
miseries, and disasters that befal them, it certainly would 
cloud and darken their brightest hours even in heaven. If 
a husband or a wife, who had lived holy on earth, and was 
now sainted in the skies, was destined to see and know the 
after-career of the one, who was so long the partner of 
every thought, and the sharer of every feeling, and the 
companion of every pleasure ; — and to see and know them- 
selves forgotten and unthought-of, and altogether unsor- 
rowed and unwept — to see and know that all love was 
vanished, and infidelity come in— and all vows and promises 
broken and gone — and to see and know their place in the 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 



175 



home, in the thoughts, in the affections, occupied by others, 
it certainly would be no source of increase to the happi- 
ness of their heaven. It will not be reasonable to suppose, 
that the saints in heaven see and know only that portion 
of the things of those they have left on earth, which is plea- 
sant and flattering ; they must also be supposed to see those 
that are unpleasant and painful. If they can hear our 
prayers to be delivered from sickness, or sorrow, or suf- 
fering, they can also hear our sighing under sorrow ; our 
groaning under suffering ; and our complaining under sick- 
ness. If they can see us in our hours of devotion, they can 
see us in our hours of recklessness ; and if they can read 
the holy thoughts of our hearts, they can scan the unholy 
feelings of our bodies. If they can look on us in our acts 
of prayer, they can also look upon us in our works of sin ; 
and, I added, that when we consider that in every one of us, 
even the holiest and the best, there is always more of evil 
than good ; more of sin than holiness ; more to be deplored 
than praised : we must conclude, that it would not be for 
the happiness of the saints in heaven, that they should be 
able to see or know what is passing on earth among those 
whom they left behind them. 

My companion had listened with earnest attention, while 
I dwelt, at some length, on this point ; and although at 
first he said nothing, I yet felt that my argument was tak- 
ing effect on his mind. It appeared as if his feeling was 
against me, while his judgment was with me ; so I re- 
minded him, that our conversation had very much arisen out 
of his stating that one way in which he kept himself from 
the commission of sin, was reflecting how much his sin 
would grieve Saint Peter. Surely, if Saint Peter is grieved 



176 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



at every sin committed thus by all that believe in him, he 
cannot but have more grief than joy in his heavenly state. 
It must be heart-breaking for him to witness all the aliena- 
tion from God, all the departures from holiness, all the 
carelessness about the soul, all the . ingratitude towards the 
Saviour, in short, all the folly, the vice, the unholiness, the 
worldliness, the unbelief, the sins, that cloud and darken 
our lives. On the other hand, if we shut out all this, so 
sad and so painful to a holy mind, and so inexpressibly sad 
and painful to those who are amidst the holiness of heaven, 
— if we shut out all this from their knowledge, and regard 
them as ever living in the presence of God, ever circling 
around the throne above, ever dwelling with the Saviour, ever 
associating with angelic spirits and redeemed souls, ever 
admiring his glories, wondering at his love, and praising 
his goodness, and thus living all holy and happy, without 
one thought to mar their holiness or dim their happiness, 
then indeed we have a far higher idea of the state of the 
saints above, than in supposing them to have any cogni- 
zance of the things on earth. We are told in the holy 
scriptures, that Josiah was removed from this life, in order 
that he might not know the evils that were about to befal 
the land. This implies that our removal to heaven re- 
moves us altogether, not only from the affairs of this present 
world, but also from the knowledge of them. And this 
seems essential to all real happiness for man. 

He seemed to assent to all this, and said that it certainly 
gave a very high idea of the state and the happiness of the 
saints in glory ; adding that it must pain them much to see 
or know the wickedness of men's hearts, and the many sins 
of the best among us. 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 



177 



I then remarked, that he could thus perceive that we 
Protestants had not less exalted notions of the saints, than 
had Roman Catholics. We regard them as in the highest 
holiness and happiness. And we desire and pray to be able 
to imitate them, and follow them in the example of their 
holiness, but we do not pray to them, because we think 
that prayer belongs exclusively to God, and also because 
we think the saints cannot hear our prayers, and there is 
no use in praying to them, if they cannot hear us. 

After a pause of some duration, in which I left his mind 
to work on what had been said, he broke it by saying that 
it was plain from the words of the scriptures, that the 
saints knew when we repented, for that the Blessed Sa- 
viour had said, there was joy in heaven, in the presence of 
the angels of God, over the sinner that repents ; so that, if 
they can know the repentance, they can know the prayers 
he has made to them. He asked me how I could explain 
that statement, consistently with the views I had expressed. 

I. said at once, that the words of our Lord had reference 
to the angels, and not to the saints — had reference to those 
angels, who are the ministers and messengers of his will 
throughout the world, and who are expressly said to be 
" ministering spirits, sent forth to minister unto them, that 
are the heirs of salvation." It may be reasonable there- 
fore to suppose that it is necessary for them in passing to 
and fro through the world to know some things respecting 
those on earth. But this is a widely different thing from 
the saints, who are not angelic spirits, but men who have 
been glorified in heaven ; and although the children of God 
after the resurrection will be equal to the angels, yet it 
I 5 



178 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



will be in holiness and happiness, and love of God, and not 
in office. 

He saw this distinction clearly, and acknowledged its pro- 
priety, and added, that he did not remember having heard 
it pointed out before. 

I then stated, that although that was the ordinary an- 
swer given to this argument, as derived from the particular 
scripture to which he had referred, yet it was by no means 
the best or fittest answer ; — that the whole passage was 
sadly misunderstood, and perverted by many who ought to 
know better — and that, if he would bear with me for a few 
minutes, while I read and explained the place, I thought 
he would agree with me as to its real meaning, for that I 
never knew a really devout and religious mind, that did 
not at once embrace that meaning when laid before it. 

I then reminded him that the place to which he had 
referred, occurred in the fifteenth of the gospel according 
to St. Luke ; and that it occurred in a parable, of which 
there were three, all in the same chapter and all illustrating 
the same truth — a truth of the greatest encouragement and 
comfort to the believer. That truth was the joy and re- 
joicing it brought to the heart of God to receive the re- 
pentant and returning sinner. In the language of holy 
scripture, our God is described as compassionating, yearning 
over, and loving the poor unhappy sinner, and then rejoic- 
ing when he sees him reflecting and returning to him. 
This is the truth — the joy of God — which our Lord is 
teaching in each of these three parables. 

The first parable is that of the shepherd and the stray 
sheep, and it occurs at verse 4. The great and principal 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 



179 



object of this parable is to show the yearning and careful- 
ness of the shepherd, for the sheep which he had lost, 
and his extreme joy at recovering it again. And as Jesus 
Christ is "the good shepherd," and "the great Bishop 
and Shepherd of our souls," so the object of the parable 
was to illustrate his joy in receiving again the wandering 
sinner, who had returned to the fold he had left ; and to 
make this his joy the more apparent, he is described as 
telling it to all his friends, and desiring them to share in 
his rejoicing, illustrating as it were, our Lord proclaiming 
throughout the heavens above, the glad tidings of the lost 
sinner having repented and returned. "I say unto you 
that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that 
repenteth." The parable shows the joy of the shepherd 
rather than the joy of the friends, and so it is designed to 
illustrate the joy of God in the presence of all the angels of 
heaven, rather than merely the joy of the angels ; — the joy 
of our God, rather than the joy of his angels. 

The second parable is at verse 8. The object here is 
evident, to shew the esteem and value which this woman 
put on her piece of silver, which she had lost ; — to shew 
the carefulness and anxiety with which she sought it again 
— and her great delight at having found it ; calling to all her 
friends and neighbours, and telling them of her joy, and 
asking them to rejoice with her. There can be no doubt 
that the intention of this was, to illustrate the love of the 
Saviour, yearning over and seeking the lost and wandering 
sinner ; and so rejoicing at seeing his repentance, as that 
He proclaims the event to all the heavens, that the angelic 
spirits might hear and rejoice likewise. " Likewise, I say 
unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God 



180 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



over one sinner that repenteth." Thus it is a joy in the 
presence of the angels, that is, a joy of God ; not so much 
a joy of angels as a joy of God in their presence, that our 
Lord desires to describe. 

The last of those remarkable parables is one universally 
known and understood ; — it is at verse 1 1 . The point of 
this parable, taken in connexion with the preceding ones, 
is where the Father is described as seeing his returning 
son, while yet afar off, running to meet him, and kissing 
him, and welcoming him lovingly as if he had never erred ; 
and never even uttering a word of rebuke or unkindness ; 
being so fall of joy and rejoicing at receiving his prodigal 
and erring child, now repentant and returning. His telling 
his neighbours and friends is designed to shew the great- 
ness of his joy. There can be no mistake as to the purport 
of all this : it is impossible to read it without feeling that 
all is designed to illustrate the loving and fatherly heart of 
God, yearning after a lost and erring soul, and rejoicing 
over his repentance — " He desireth not the death of a 
sinner, but rather that he should turn from his sins and 
live." The parable beautifully illustrates this yearning and 
loving spirit of our Father in heaven ; and as beautifully 
depicts the joy and happiness it brings to His heart, when 
the sinner turns from his sins and seeks again to the bosom 
of his God. But it is apparent in all this, that the object 
of our Lord in the parable, was not to represent the know- 
ledge or the love or the joy merely of the angels, but of 
that which is incomparably more important to us, namely, 
the knowledge and the love and the joy of God himself. 

Having thus gone through each of the parables, and my 
companion having in a very lively way shewn his assent to 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 



181 



all I said, as I spoke of each of them, I endeavoured to im- 
press him with what was my own feeling ; namely, that we 
lose all the real beauty and power of these parables, when 
we look on them as merely designed to illustrate the joy of 
angels over the repentant sinner. It is the joy of God 
himself — the joy of the Great and Ineffable One — the joy 
of our heavenly Father himself, it is this which the parables 
are designed to illustrate. And this is a well-spring of com- 
fort and encouragement. It is nothing — comparatively 
nothing, to be told that the angels rejoice at the repentance 
of the sinner, though that is most true, and the parables 
imply it; but it is everything to know that our God himself 
so loves us, so yearns over us, so watches us, so longs for 
our repentance that He, even He, rejoices to receive us; and 
so rejoices, that He shows that joy in the presence of ail the 
angelic inhabitants of heaven, and invites them to share in 
his joy. There is no comfort, I added, and no encourage- 
ment whether in life or in death, like feeling in our hearts 
that God loves us, and rejoices to be gracious to us. 

He fully entered into this feeling ; he could conceive, he 
said, of nothing beyond it, and his whole countenance 
shewed the reality of his words ; but after a short pause he 
seemed doubtfully to shake his head, and he said it seemed 
too much, too high, too far beyond all that a poor sinner 
could hope or dream of. He had, he added, never dared 
to look so high, and had always felt that it was wonderful 
that even the holy angels, or the blessed saints should think 
of us. And surely, he said, the blessed saints, though now 
in glory, were once like ourselves on earth, and could feel 
for us, and feel with us. It is true they were a thousand 
times more good, and holy, and full of grace ; but still they 



182 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



were human creatures, and they may perhaps be the more 
able to feel with us, and it is therefore, that Roman Catho- 
lics come to them, and pray them to pray for us, that God 
may through their intercession grant us what we fear our- 
selves to ask of Him. We feel that we are not worthy of 
coming to God, or of being heard by Him, and therefore 
we humbly approach Him, through His blessed saints. 

I said that I was quite aware of that, but that as I had 
said before, there was no use praying to those who could 
not hear us, and could not know our hearts or thoughts or 
prayers, so I looked on it as a very great error to pray to 
these saints who cannot hear, instead of praying to that 
God who can hear us. And I reminded him that he had 
failed to shew, that the saints can hear, or know, or see 
anything about us, and that the parables to which he had 
referred me, had been seen to involve nothing of the kind ; 
so I again asked him to tell me how they can hear our 
prayers; how it was possible that any saint, even St. Peter, 
to whom he habitually prayed, or even the Virgin Mary, 
who was so much the object of prayer in the church of 
Rome, could hear the prayers of their many votaries, offered 
in so many lands. With an infinite God we see no diffi- 
culty. His omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence 
accomplish all ; but with finite beings like the saints, all 
this is impossible. It is against reason to believe it, and 
there is nothing in revelation to sanction it. 

He said that it might be, that though the saints could not 
of themselves know our prayers, yet God might reveal them 
to them ; that thus it might be as in the parable, God calling 
to them, telling them, and then asking them to rejoice with 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 



183 



Him. They might thus know our devotion, our praying 
and all our reverence to them. 

I answered that this was quite possible when taken 
generally, as that when God expressed and shewed his joy, 
at the repentance of a sinner, the angels and saints in hea- 
ven might see his joy and know the cause ; but this was a 
different thing altogether from their hearing our prayers, 
seeing our devotions, and knowing our hearts. But besides 
this, this idea could not help his object. He supposed that 
God told our prayers to the saints, and that the saints re- 
vealed them back again to God, — that He revealed our 
wants to the saints, and that the saints revealed them back 
again to God ! This was not approaching God through the 
medium of the saints, but it was approaching the saints 
through the medium of God ; or, to express the matter in 
another and more theological manner, it was not coming to 
God through the saints, as mediators of intercession with 
Him, but it was coming to the saints through God, as a 
mediator of intercession with them ! I added that I had 
often heard all this from devout and religious members of 
the church of Rome, in their endeavours to excuse and jus- 
tify their practice of praying to the saints in glory, but that 
it seemed to me to pass all the bounds of the reasonable. 
It seemed to throw rather an air of the ridiculous over the 
practice ; for whereas you, yourself, have stated that you 
devote yourself and present your prayers to St. Peter, 
asking of him to pray to God for you, — to intercede with 
God for you, — to tell God your wants, and obtain them for 
you, — after all it appears that it is not St. Peter, who tells 
your wants to God, but God, who must first tell them to 
St. Peter ; and as for your prayers, it is not St. Peter who 



184 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



conveys them to God, but it is God who conveys them to 
St. Peter. And thus according to this hypothesis, your 
prayers must after all come first to God, He then reveals 
them to St. Peter, and then St. Peter prays them back again 
to God ! Surely you do not think this idea justified, either 
by reason or by revelation. 

But, — he asked emphatically, — would you not approach 
an earthly king or queen, through the medium of their favor- 
ites and courtiers ; you would not presume to enter at once 
into the royal presence and make your request; in the same 
way ought we not, — is it not more humble and reverential, 
to approach our God, the great God of heaven, though 
those angels and saints who are his favourites and friends ? 

I answered, by saying, that even supposing his principle 
was sound and good, which I did not think it was, still he 
himself did not act on it, nor did his system base itself on 
it. His system was, to offer a prayer to a saint, which that 
saint could not hear, — that God, the great God of Heaven, 
heard it first, and then told it to the saint, and that then 
the saint told it back again to God. According to this 
system you always go first to God, you always first approach 
God himself, and not his saints or angels. It is as if you 
had a petition to present to the king, and wished to present 
it through one of his favourites, but this favourite does not 
hear you, while the king himself does hear you ; and therefore 
your system supposes the king to present your petition to 
his favourite, and then this favourite presents it back again 
on your behalf to the king ! Thus, I added, your own 
system is a direct contradiction of your own argument. 

He seemed much perplexed at this, and evidently could 
not see his way out of the labyrinth. And he was a man 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 



185 



too honest and true, and too much in earnest as to religion, 
to make a mere effort at getting over a difficulty ; so he 
endeavoured to put the point in another light. He asked 
me whether I did not think the saints in glory were con- 
stantly praying for us on earth, at least that they were 
willing to pray for us ; — that they were true and loving 
friends and brothers to us, and were always ready and will- 
ing to pray to God for us. And if this was the case, it 
could be no harm, no sin, to ask them to pray for us — and 
that this was all they meant by the ora pro nobis, the pray 
for us, in the church of Rome. 

I reminded him that they offered much more than a 
simple ora pro nobis — that they prayed of the saints for 
grace, for holiness, for piety, for sanctification, for devotion, 
for faith, for salvation — that all these petitions were em- 
bodied in several of their prayers, in their standard books of 
devotion. And that it was something more than a simple 
ora pro nobis, a simple pray for us. But, I added, that even 
supposing this were all, and supposing you have a pious 
friend and Christian brother in America, or in Asia, one 
who loves your soul, and constantly prays for you ; do you 
think you would be acting rationally or Christianly to go 
on your knees, and in this Europe, pray to a man in America 
or Asia to pray to God for you, when you are aware he 
cannot hear you, or even know that you are praying to him 
or any one else ? If he could hear you, if he could know 
it, if by letter or otherwise, he could be aware of it, there 
would be something reasonable in it ; but so long as he 
can neither hear or know it the thing must be most un- 
reasonable. 

He felt this fully and acknowledged it. He had many 



186 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



friends and relations who had emigrated to America. He 
had sometimes contemplated going there himself, and 
therefore, he was able fully to appreciate the allusion. I 
therefore took the occasion to strengthen my argument by 
asking him to repeat for me the Confiteor, or form of con- 
fession as contained in their liturgy. 

He at once complied, repeating the words. 

I then observed, that in that form he had made confes- 
sion of sin to God, to the Virgin Mary, to St. Peter, and 
to other saints, all alike ; he made no distinction among 
them. I added, that I could understand his making con- 
fession to God, who could hear his words and know his 
heart ; — that I could also understand his confession to the 
priest, who could hear his words, though he could not see 
his heart ; but that I could not comprehend his making con- 
fession to Mary, to Peter, or to the other saints, who could 
not possibly hear his words or read his thoughts. Where, 
I asked, could be the use of confessing to those who can- 
not hear you ? 

He stated frankly, that he was unable to answer me — 
that the idea of the saints not knowing our confessions and 
prayers had never occurred to him, and that he had always 
taken it as a matter of course, as if it were a part of their 
blessedness in their state of glory. He had always thought 
thus ; but he acknowledged he knew of no way of explain- 
ing how or in what manner it was. He then stated, that 
he had always practised it as taught in his church, on the 
ground of its humility, as becoming a poor sinner like 
himself, to be humble, as unwilling to come presumptuously 
and confidently into the presence of the great God ; and 
feeling that the blessed Virgin and St. Peter having been 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 



187 



like himself, once, on earth, and living human lives, and 
knowing human infirmities, would have a sympathy and 
compassion — a sort of fellow-feeling for him — he could go 
to them more comfortably, and with more confidence than 
he could go into the presence of the great God. He said 
that he feared God, but that he had confidence in the 
blessed Mary and St. Peter — that there was a something 
in his heart — a feeling which he could not well explain — 
which led him to this practice, and which was met and 
satisfied by it ; it seemed, so to speak, natural; more natural 
to go to them than to God, and they would intercede for 
him and help him. 

I said, in answer to this, that there were many wants, 
desires, and yearnings in our nature ; that our religion 
ought to answer and satisfy. And that it always seemed 
to me as a strong, internal evidence for Christianity — that 
it recognized and satisfied these cravings of the soul or 
inner nature of the man ; that it appeared to me as if the 
feeling he had expressed, namely, an expectation of sym- 
pathy and help from the saints, as being of the same nature 
with himself, instead of from one so infinitely removed 
above and beyond him, as was God himself, was a feeling 
of this very kind — a want or yearning that seems natural 
to us, and seems to require something in true religion to 
meet and satisfy it. I then remarked, that among the 
theological systems of the ancient heathens of Greece and 
Rome, this want was met and satisfied in a way, by the 
enrolment of their great or useful men among the demi- 
gods, as Esculapius, Romulus, Bacchus, and a thousand 
others. It was supposed that the Dii Majores, the great 
gods, as Jupiter, &c, were too much above and beyond 



188 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



the reach of thought, or interest, or sympathy for mortals ; 
and therefore, men had recourse to the Dii Minores, or 
demi-gods, who had once been men on earth like them- 
selves ; and who could be supposed capable of the requisite 
amount of sympathy for them ; and who, therefore, could 
and would stand between them and the great gods, and be- 
come their mediators and intercessors. 

My friend here broke in with a remark, as natural as it 
was true, namely, that this was precisely the same as the 
practice of the church of Rome. He said it was won- 
derful how heathens, as they were without any light or 
teaching from the church, yet living before the church 
itself was founded, had been able to see this truth, and to 
imitate it beforehand. It seemed to him that there must 
have been some glimpses of true religion among them. 
The Jews had their sacrifices of blood, going before the 
sacrifice of the blood of Jesus Christ. And they had the 
supper of the Passover going before the blessed Sacrament 
of the Lord's Supper. But they had an express command 
and revelation for these, while the heathens of Greece and 
Rome, who had no such command or revelation, had their 
demi-gods to intercede for them with the great gods, long 
before the church had canonized the saints in glory to be 
our intercessors, our mediators of intercession with God. 
He asked me whether I could account for this. 

I was not a little amused at the mixture of truth and 
error exhibited in these remarks ; and could not fail being 
impressed with the simplicity with which they were made. 
I said, with as much kindness and delicacy as possible, 
when about to utter truths that were not likely to be ac- 
ceptable, that the feeling of a certain want or desire or 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 



189 



yearning in our inner nature to which he had before ad- 
verted, was felt, naturally felt among the heathens as much 
as among Christians ; and that they met or tried to meet 
and satisfy this feeling in very much the same way, at 
least in ways suitable to and consistent with their respective 
systems. The heathens selected a number of the greatest, 
best and most useful men, and enrolled them among the 
demi-gods, and regarded them as their mediators of inter- 
cession. The church of Rome also selected those who 
were the most remarkable among her members for religion 
or zeal or usefulness, and canonized them, placing them in 
the calendar of the saints, and having recourse to them as 
mediators of intercession. The two systems seemed one 
and the same in principle. They were similar attempts 
to supply the yearnings and cravings of nature, to which 
we had already adverted. But, I added, that I could not 
consider them as two different systems, but only as one 
and the same, regarding one as a continuation of the other ; 
— that however hard it might seem to bear upon the 
church of Rome, yet I felt that the system of that church 
was only a continuation of the heathen system — that, in- 
stead of meeting the wants of the soul, as revealed Chris- 
tianity meets it, she permitted the old system of the hea- 
thens to continue ; transferring to the saints the worship 
previously paid to the demigods, and substituting Peter, 
and Paul, and Catherine, and Mary, for a Romulus, or a 
Mercury, or a Minerva, or a Juno. 

1 here took the opportunity of stating to my companion, 
who I knew loved the broad, and plain, and satisfying 
truths of the Gospel, that revelation had recognized that 
evident and palpable feeling of our inner nature, to which 



190 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



we had been referring, — and had answered it in the fullest 
and only satisfying way. Revelation as contained in the 
Holy Scriptures, assumes that the natural man, the uncon- 
verted man, ordinarily looks on God as a God to be feared 
— that he generally looks on the attributes of greatness, 
omnipotence, justice, holiness, the attributes that invest 
Him with that which makes Him to be feared, rather 
than loved. Revelation then describes God as loving the 
world, so loving it as to give his Son for it, and then 
describes that Son, as all gentleness, kindness, compassion, 
love, thus representing God to us in the opposite aspect, in- 
vesting Him with all those characteristics, which make Him 
to be loved rather than feared. Revelation thus meets the 
inner craving, to which we have adverted, by shewing God 
in a new and more accessible light, and then places before 
us that grand truth, that in the Son of God, in Him who 
has loved us and given himself for us, in Him who has died 
the death, even the death of the cross for us, in Him who 
became man, and lived, and suffered, and died as man in 
our stead and on our behalf, in Him we have a Mediator — 
both a mediator of redemption, having died for us, and a 
mediator of intercession interceding for us ; — and who as 
having been a man, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, 
can sympathize with us. Here is one, who has loved us, as 
none other ever loved us — can sympathize with us as none 
other can sympathize, and can effectually intercede for us 
as none can else. And He, emphatically He, Jesus Christ 
the Good Shepherd, as well as the glorified Saviour, is 
the One who answers and satisfies this want and yearning 
of our nature. The language of Revelation is strong and 
explicit on this point, "There is one God and one Mediator 



PRAYER TO THE SAINTS. 



191 



between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." — 1 Tim. ii. 5. 
Again, "Although there be that are called Gods, as there 
be Gods many and Lords many, yet to us there is but one 
God, even the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ." — 1 Cor. 
viii. 5. Again, " I write unto you that ye sin not, and if any 
man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ 
the righteous." — John ii. 2. This is the unvarying lan- 
guage of the Holy Scriptures. And it has been the sin of 
the church of Rome, that while she sees and recognizes 
the want, and desire, and yearning of the soul for some 
mediator to intercede with God, she has not directed her 
children to Him, whom Revelation has revealed, but has 
allowed the old and mythological system of the heathens to 
continue. Instead of uprooting that system, and pro- 
claiming the truth of Revelation, she has continued and 
consecrated the system of demi-gods, by the canonization 
of saints, and pointing to them as our Mediator of inter- 
cession. 

My friend was in no degree hurt or irritated by this. 
Our conversation continued but a short time longer, par- 
taking less of controversy, and touching on truths common 
to us both. We parted, he remarking that although I was 
the most decided Protestant he had ever met, and had 
said most against his church, yet he always found that he 
was able to agree more with me than with any one else ; 
and that he could not account for this, but that such was 
the fact ; — upon which I remarked in leaving him, that it 
arose from our both being really in earnest about the salva- 
tion of souls, rather than the exaltation of churches, and 
that there were truths which would yet work their way to 
his heart, as they had done to mine. And that I had too 



192 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



much experience of death-beds not to know that those 
were the truths that alone sustained, comforted, and en- 
couraged the dying man. Jesus Christ is the all and the 
only one, and I was sure that he would himself be yet 
brought sooner or later to feel and know it. 

I added, that my parting word with him should be, that 
whenever he needed sympathy in heaven — whenever his 
soul was in need of the comforts of sympathy in heaven, 
he had only to remember Him who became man in order, 
among other things, to manifest his capacity for sympa- 
thizing with us. He is even now, while we are speaking 
of Him, thinking of us, and as " the Great High Priest 
of our profession," interceding for us. I then opened my 
Bible and read — " Seeing then that we have a great high 
priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of 
God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an 
high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of 
our infirmities ; but was in all points tempted like as we 
are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto 
the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find 
grace to help in time of need. For every high priest taken 
from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining 
to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins : 
Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them 
that are out of the way ; for that he himself also is com- 
passed with infirmity." — Hebrews iv. 14 — 16; v. 1, 2. 
And so we parted. 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



THE VALUE OF PRAYER RIGHTLY OFFERED THE LITANY TO THE 

SAINTS HOW ASCERTAINED THAT ALL THESE ARE SAINTS OF 

GOD WHETHER IN HEAVEN, OR PURGATORY, OR HELL CANON- 
IZATION BY THE POPE CANONIZATION, AN AFFAIR OF FORMALI- 
TIES AND OF MONEY EXPENSES OF CANONIZATION HOW THE 

TRUE SAINTS CAN KNOW THE HEARTS, OR HEAR THE PRAYERS OF 

THEIR VOTARIES WHETHER ROMAN CATHOLICS ONLY ASK THE 

PRAYER OF THE SAINTS CONFESSION OF SINS TO THE SAINTS 

WHETHER THIS PRACTICE BE ENFORCED IN THE CHURCH OF ROME, 

OR ONLY RECOMMENDED ESSENTIAL BEFORE ABSOLUTION AND 

BEFORE COMMUNION. 

Another conversation on the same subject was carried on 
in a very different spirit and with a very different person. 
He was one well-known for his virulence and violence 
against every thing connected with the Holy Scriptures or 
with Protestantism. It was thought that he was connected 
with some of the illegal societies that kept the country in con- 
stant excitement and disturbance, and certainly he was a 
bold and violent man. But he had considerable influence 
among a large class of the population, and was the leader 
in all the popular political movements of the day in his im- 
mediate neighbourhood. He was thus a favourite with the 

K 



194 EVENTNGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



priesthood of the church of Rome, of whom he was a most 
zealous supporter, and by whom he was constantly employed 
as a convenient instrument for spreading agitation among 
the people. 

This man took a very active part in checking the circu- 
lation of the scriptures, and often succeeded in turning the 
minds of the people from religious enquiry, by entering on 
political questions, and thus supplanting religion by politics. 
At this period, large numbers of the Roman Catholics, 
sometimes so many as twenty at a time, used to meet 
together in one of their houses — used to open the sacred 
volume — read a chapter, and proceed to converse over its 
meaning. This system was spreading a knowledge of the 
Holy Scriptures rapidly among the people. A spirit of 
enquiry was growing and extending, and the numbers, who 
withdrew from the church of Rome, shewed to the priest- 
hood, that their fears of the circulation of the scriptures 
were not without cause. Council was wisely taken. This 
man and two or three others, altogether under the influ- 
ence of the priesthood, made it their business to visit all 
these little meetings for scripture reading, and before the 
sacred volume was opened, they produced some newspapers 
containing the speeches of Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Sheil, and 
others of the popular orators of the day. At that time, 
these celebrated men spoke once a week at the meetings of 
the Catholic association, and dilated on the wrongs and 
sufferings, real or imaginary, of the Roman Catholics of 
Ireland. The reading of these speeches gradually took 
the place of reading the scriptures, and conversations on 
politics soon were substituted for conversations on religion. 

The fearless, and indeed fierce manner, in which this man 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



195 



followed the example of the priesthood in denouncing the 
persons who had withdrawn from the church of Rome, led 
to some of them rather hastily, accepting in my name a 
challenge from him to defend the principles of Protestant- 
ism. They had arranged the place, the hour, the subject, 
before I was aware of it, and though I had an extreme re- 
pugnance to any communication with this person, I saw 
there was no way of escape, to the satisfaction of the 
people. 

We met in the house of one of the Protestants, as he said 
he could not enter that of a convert or apostate. The sub- 
ject was — Prayer to saints, and there were some thirty per- 
sons present. 

I thought, from his manner, which was very constrained 
and nervous, but extremely respectful to myself personally, 
that he would have been as glad as myself, to have escaped 
the meeting. 

I commenced by endeavouring to give a gentle, earnest, 
and solemn tone to the meeting, by a few words on the im- 
portance of salvation to all, and on the value and comfort 
of prayer to our Father, and our God. I said, that the 
life of a Christian, was a life of prayer. When the Al- 
mighty revealed himself to Ananias, and would express the 
conversion of Paul, He did so in the emphatic words, 
,c Behold, he prayeth ! " When the Lord Jesus Christ 
would exhort his followers, it was in the simple words, 
" Watch unto prayer ; " and when his apostle desired to see 
his disciples walking in the faith, he does so in the expres- 
sive words, " Pray without ceasing." The breath of the 
spiritual life is prayer, and just as the Levitical priest within 
the holy place, offered his incense till its perfumed vapour 
K 2 



196 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



filled the sanctuary, above, beneath, around, so as that the 
very atmosphere he breathed, was an atmosphere of incense, 
so the child of God, the member of the " holy priesthood 
to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God, by Jesus 
Christ," 1 Peter ii. 5, is to sustain his spiritual life, breath- 
ing that which was typified by incense — breathing the at- 
mosphere of prayer. I was very desirous to impress this 
spirit on all present, before our strife should commence. 
I said, that the soul that has lived in prayer, will need no 
arguments from me, to induce to high thoughts of the 
sweetness, the comfort, the happiness of prayer. I added, 
that the more we value it. and the more important we feel 
it, in the very same degree is it important that we should 
pray aright, and especially that we should pray to Him 
" who heareth prayer," — who hath commanded us to pray, 
and who, in asking for our prayers, declares himself a "jea- 
lous God, who will not give his glory to another." Our 
great principle is, that prayer is one great element of that 
worship that belongs to God — that which both nature and 
revelation alike demand, as the homage of the creature to 
his Creator ; and as such, it should be rendered to the Crea- 
tor alone — not to the creature, but to the Creator alone. 
The transition from this to our subject was easy. 

In the Church of Rome, a different principle has been 
adopted. She has recommended the offering of prayer, 
not to the Creator alone, but to the creature also, — not to 
God alone, but also to the angelic creation, and to the 
redeemed in heaven, — to the angels and the saints above. 
And I suggested that it would be a convenient mode of 
commencement if our friend would begin, by repeating the 
Litany to the saints. I said, there was no necessity to repeat 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



197 



the whole ; if he began with St. Lawrence and St. Vincent 
it would be enough. 

The suggestion was acceptable to all, and he began, and 
most of the Roman Catholics present repeated it aloud 
with him . 

St. Lawrence, pray for us. 

St. Vincent, pray for us. 

St. Fabian and St. Sebastian, pray for us. 

St. John and St. Paul, pray for us. 

St. Cosmos and St. Damian, pray for us. 

St. Gervase and St. Protase, pray for us. 

All ye Holy Martyrs, pray for us. 

St. Sylvester, pray for us. 

St. Gregory, pray for us. 

St. Ambrose, pray for us. 

St. Augustine, pray for us. 

St. Jerome, pray for us. 

St. Martin, pray for us. 

St. Nicholas, pray for us. 

All ye Holy Bishops and Confessors, pray for us. 

All ye Holy Doctors, pray for us. 

St. Anthony, pray for us. 

St. Benedict, pray for us. 

St. Bernard, pray for us. 

St. Dominick, pray for us. 

St. Francis, pray for us. 

All ye Holy Priests and Levites, pray for us. 

All ye Holy Monks and Hermits, pray for us. 

St. Mary Magdalen, pray for us. 

St. Agatha, pray for us. 

St. Lucy, pray for us. 



198 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



St. Cecilia, pray for us. 

St. Catherine, pray for us. 

St. Anastasia, pray for us. 

All ye Holy Virgins and Widows, pray for us. 

All ye Saints of God, make intercession for us. 

The repeating of this Litany had a striking effect on the 
original Protestants present, who had never before heard 
it. They were for the most part, earnest and religious 
men, who could not associate prayer in their minds, with 
any one but God. They felt very fully that there was 
" one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the 
man Christ Jesus." — 1 Tim. ii. 5. They knew well the 
words " If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the 
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." — 1 John ii. 2. And 
they believed him " able to save to the uttermost all that 
come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make in- 
tercession for them." — Heb. vii. 25. They were therefore 
not a little startled at a series of Mediators and Intercessors, 
whose very names they had never heard. They shewed 
this in their manner. 

I then remarked, amidst the most profound attention, 
that our friend had recited a portion of the Litany, praying 
to a number of persons to pray for us ; there were the 
names of men and the names of women — the names of 
persons of whom some of us had never heard, and of 
whom the most informed among us knew but little. Now 
I wished to ask, how our friend knew that these persons 
were saints in heaven ? We all felt of course, that if these 
persons are not saints in heaven, but devils in hell, or dis- 
embodied spirits anywhere else, it would be idolatrous to 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



199 



pray to them at all. And therefore I ask how he knoivs 
that they are really saints in Heaven ? 

He said at once, with confidence, that they were persons 
who lived in the faith of Jesus Christ, and died in the com- 
munion of the only true church — the church of Rome — 
that having lived holy lives, and done good works, and 
wrought miracles on earth, they are now rewarded by being 
translated into heaven. And being dear to God on account 
of their religion, their prayers and intercessions for us are 
effectual. And therefore we pray to them in order to 
secure their interest and intercession with God in our favour. 

I reminded him that this was not an answer to my ques- 
tion — that I had asked, how he knew that all these persons 
were saints in Heaven ? The question was important, 
because it was held in the church of Rome, that when per- 
sons die, the wicked are cast into hell, and the righteous 
are sent to purgatory. Now if the righteous are sent to 
purgatory until they have suffered all that was due to their 
sins, how does our friend know that these persons are yet 
out of purgatory or are yet in heaven ? 

This question seemed greatly to interest, and indeed to 
amuse our whole party, except our friend who was called 
to answer it. He was perfectly perplexed, but after some 
time, he said that the saints never went to purgatory — that 
they had merit enough, and sometimes more than enough, 
for their own salvation, and to atone for all their sins, and 
that therefore it was their privilege, like the martyrs, to go 
at once to heaven when they die. 

Still, I answered, my question remains, namely how is 
it known that these persons whose names are in the Litany, 
are really saints '! What authority do you give me for the 



200 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

fact ? You tell me that these persons are saints. I ask — 
how do you know that ? You tell me also that it is the 
privilege of saints to go at once to heaven, without staying 
in purgatory, I ask — how do you know that ? How has it 
been ascertained, that all these persons are now in heaven ? 
The importance of this inquiry will be freely admitted, 
when it is considered, that it must be confessed by all 
parties to be "a fond and vain thing," to pray to those, 
who are not saints, — to pray to those, who are not in 
heaven. And, therefore, we ask, — How has it been ascer- 
tained, that all these persons are really saints ? How 
has it been ascertained, that all these persons are now in 
heaven ? To answer this inquiry by saying, — ' They lived 
holy lives on earth, and, therefore, are now holy saints in 
heaven,' is not sufficient ; for we are liable to be deceived. 
We can only look to " the outward appearance ; the Lord 
looketh to the heart." "We know, that " the heart of 
man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked : 
Who can know it ? " We know, that it is God only, can 
" search the heart and try the reins." And, therefore, we 
feel, that it is He alone can know, who are His saints. 
"The Lord knoweth them that are His." There is so much 
deception, so much false profession, so much hypocrisy in 
the world, that, though we may hope and wish, we yet 
can never assuredly know, who are the saints of God. It 
may be found, hereafter, that some shall have a throne in 
heaven, whom we had believed to be in hell ; and, that some 
shall mourn in hell, whom we had believed to be in heaven. 
We ask, then, — How has it been ascertained, that Gervase 
and Protase, — that Francis and Dominic, — that all these 
monks and hermits, — are really saints in Heaven ? How has 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



201 



it been ascertained, that Agatha and Lucy, — that Cecilia 
and Catherine, — that all these virgins and widows — (the mar- 
ried women are all left out) — are really saints in heaven ? 
We have strong and well-grounded suspicions, that many 
of these may never have entered heaven. We have strong 
and well-grounded suspicions, that St. Francis, who was 
one of the most awfully-blaspheming monks that ever 
trod the chambers of a monastery, may never have 
entered heaven. We have strong and well-grounded 
suspicions, that St. Dominic, who founded that hateful 
institution, which has been " drunk with the blood of the 
saints and martyrs of Jesus " — the Inquisition, may possi- 
bly be in a worse region than heaven. We may well be 
allowed to doubt, whether Archbishop Lawrence, who 
shook Ireland with rebellion, — or whether Thomas a Becket, 
who disturbed England by faction,— or whether Garnet, 
who hatched the Gunpowder Treason, — we may well be 
allowed to doubt, whether these men really are saints ! 
And when we read the roll of the canonized saints of Rome, 
— when we read there the names of men like these, — men, 
whom all history and their own writings prove to have 
been blasphemers, or persecutors, or rebels, or traitors, — 
we think we have some cause to suspect, that if we invoke, 
and confess, and pray to these men, we may, possibly, be 
invoking and confessing and praying to damned souls in hell, 
instead of sainted spirits in heaven. 

This is a difficulty on the very threshold of this practice. 
The church of Rome herself has recognized the reasonable- 
ness of this difficulty on our parts. It is, therefore, that 
in order to remove all doubts and suspicions upon the sub- 
ject, it has been arranged in that church, that the pope or 
K 5 



202 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



bishop of Rome shall select those persons, who in the 
judgment of his court shall be regarded as the saints of 
God. He then canonizes those persons ; that is, he enrols 
their names in the scroll of the saints of heaven. And 
then, being thus canonized by him, all the members of 
the church of Rome are to invoke them, and confess to 
them, and pray to them. If he refuses to canonize the 
candidate, then no man is to invoke or confess or pray to 
him ; but if he determines to canonize the candidate, then 
every man is to invoke and confess and pray to him. This 
is the arrangement adopted in that church, in order to 
obviate the doubts and suspicions we might be supposed to 
entertain. If we doubt that the blaspheming Francis is a 
saint, we are answered that the pope has canonized him ; 
and then our doubt is to vanish away, as smoke before the 
wind ! If we suspect that the persecuting Dominic is not 
a saint, we are answered, that the pope has canonized him ; 
and then our suspicion must fade away, like darkness before 
the sun ! Thus all depends, according to this, upon the 
judgment of the bishop of Rome — of a man like ourselves 
— of a man, who cannot see into heaven one hair's breadth 
farther than ourselves ; and we are called on to peril our 
soul's salvation in this matter on the mere judgment of the 
bishop of Rome ! 

His reply to this was given in a sullen and dogged spirit. 
It was simply, that his holiness the pope, the successor, of 
St. Peter, the rock on which the true church was built, had 
canonized them — had declared them to be saints ! He said 
no more. 

And so, said I, you have nothing for it but the will of 
the pope ? Their names are not in the Holy Scriptures ; 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



203 



and, therefore, you have not the word of God, but only the 
word of the pope — the word of a mortal man for it ! 

He seemed very impatient and irritated at this ; stating 
in a warm manner, that the pope never canonized a saint 
without having good reasons for doing so — that every pos- 
sible means were taken to prevent any mistake — that every 
enquiry was made — that everything was done slowly and 
surely, and year by year — that time and opportunity were 
folly given for every enquiry, every doubt, and every objec- 
tion — that the act of canonization was never completed 
without long delay, in which it was proved that there was 
no error in the writings of the person to be canonized — 
that, either in his life or after his death miracles were 
known to be wrought by him — that all this was tried and 
tested in the most searching manner — that so severe was 
the test that an official was appointed, commonly called 
e the Devil's Attorney/ whose special business it was to 
oppose every canonization, and to object to all the proofs 
of orthodoxy, and of sanctity, and of miracles — and that, 
finally, it was not till all was satisfactorily proved, that the 
saint was canonized by the pope. 

In reply to all this I said, there was another view to be 
taken of this process of canonization, that very much 
altered its character. The fees — the legalized fees — of the 
process of canonization exceed some thousands of pounds ! 
These fees are to be paid to certain officials in whose hands 
the affair mainly rests ; and it is not likely — -it is not in 
human nature — that they would throw any very serious 
impediments, beyond make-belief ones, in the way of their 
own receipt of these fees, which usually run to double the 
legal amount, an enormous sum in so poor a place as 



204 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Rome ; and especially, as sometimes the expenses of the 
process itself, which are enormous, all come into the pos- 
session of the officials and retainers of the Roman courts. 
[The work, " Le Capelle Pontificie" &c, is the rubric, so 
to speak, for all the great ceremonies in w T hich the pope 
takes a part. It was said to have been written by the late 
pope Gregory XVI. It was published in 1841, under the 
name of his chamberlain and favourite Moroni. In this 
work it is stated, that the canonization of St. Bernardine of 
Sienna cost 25,000 ducats of gold — that that of St. Bona- 
venture cost 27,000 ducats of gold — that that of St. Francis 
de Paola cost 70,000 scudi — and that of St. Francis of 
Sales 31,900 scudi, averaging from £10,000 to £12,000 
each ! a prodigious sum in those days. It also states, 
that the law has legalized such fees ; as, to the prelate 
of the court 150 scudi — to the writers' office, 175 scudi 
— to the office of the seal, 87 scudi — to the register, 
176 scudi — to the office of dispatch, 60 scudi — to the 
bank of the Holy Spirit, 849 scudi, &c. &c. The scudo is 
worth about four shillings ; and it may well be believed 
that the officials who receive the fees on completing the 
canonization, will not throw unnecessary impediments in 
the way. The prospect of a canonization — a new saint is 
a perfect ' God-send 1 among them ; it is a little fortune to 
some of them.] It was customary with some kings and 
princes who knew this, as Charles III. of Spain, to propose 
a saint to be canonized almost every year ; not that he 
cared about the saint, but that he might have a handsome 
excuse for paying a large sum of money — a gentlemanly 
bribe — every year to the officials of the Papal court, in 
order to maintain his influence in that quarter. He knew 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



205 



they would not quarrel with one who brought them so 
much wealth. This was common enough in past times. 
And besides this, a large number of saints have been 
canonized through the rivalry of the monastic orders, as 
the Dominicans, and Franciscans, and Jesuits. If the mem- 
ber of one order was canonized, then, in a spirit of rivalry, 
the other orders would propose the canonization of one of 
their number. And all this was encouraged by the officials 
of the court, for, whether the saint to be canonized was 
Dominican, or Franciscan, or Jesuit, the officials were 
always ready to receive the fees; and, as might be expected 
from poor human nature, they would not be likely to op- 
pose the completion of a canonization which brought them 
so much wealth. The money was good money from what- 
ever order it came. This was a point so well understood, 
that then, as now, all persons felt that the first thing to be 
done, was to collect the adequate funds, as when they are 
prepared, there is no further difficulty of a serious nature to 
canonization. But the truth is, that of late years very few 
canonizations take place ; not more, I believe, than four or 
five for the last fifty years ; and the reason is, that since 
the French revolution and the wars of Napoleon, the im- 
mense estates of the monastic orders were confiscated, and 
the consequence is, that they have not so much money to 
spare in canonizing new saints. At present they are 
obliged to send all over the world to collect subscriptions 
before they can proceed. It is from beginning to end an 
affair of money, and not of sanctity.* 

* On the suppression of the monastic establishments in Naples, Napo- 
leon Buonaparte took possession of their property, and realized no less 
than ticenty-five millions of pounds sterling by the sale ! so enormous had 
their wealth become. 



208 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



He listened to this with the greatest interest, and seemed 
almost to forget the argument he had in hand. It ap- 
peared as if he was caught by the idea of the pecuniary 
corruptions insinuated against the court of Rome, for he 
was a great reformer in his way, among the politicians of 
his neighbourhood, and had constantly denounced in public 
the officials of the English government, for their alleged 
bribery and corruption ; it was with him a favourite subject 
in his speeches. By an accident I had used almost the 
very words he had himself frequently employed on such 
occasions ; and he seemed to be quite taken with the sub- 
ject, and to be thinking in his own mind that that was just 
the case of corruption he should like to expose. 

He said nothing when I paused, so after a moment, I 
continued, and said, that the process of canonization was 
carried on through little comfortable commissions of car- 
dinals, and other officials — that certain notices were posted 
on the churches, to notify that it was proposed to prove of 
some candidate for canonization that there was no error in 
all his writings — that he had possessed all the moral virtues 
— that he had possessed all the theological virtues — that 
he had possessed them in a heroical degree — that he 
wrought miracles either in his life or in his death — and 
that these several assertions would be maintained and 
proved in the church of some convent at certain intervals 
of time. It will readily be believed that no one takes any 
trouble about it, except those specially interested, Some- 
times the church is far away ; sometimes the proposed 
saint is a person whose name no one but the clergy remem- 
ber. It is no man's interest and no man's business to 
oppose these assertions. Comfortable little commissions 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



207 



or committees of cardinals and officials meet and settle the 
whole, and receive the fees ; and all that the public then 
know is, that the pope is to canonize the saint ! A system 
like this can give us no confidence in the canonization of 
these saints. And therefore, my question still remains — 
How do you know that these persons to whom you pray, and 
whose names were repeated in the litany, are really saints 
in heaven ? You have nothing for it but the word of the 
pope who canonized the saint. And we have seen that 
none of us can depend much upon that. 

He answered this rather rudely, saying, that he did not 
believe it— that though he knew very well that every where 
men were ready to fleece the poor out of their money, and 
then to job it among themselves — that though it was not 
improbable that there were some such persons at Rome, as 
everywhere else, yet he did not believe a word I had stated 
respecting the canonization of the saints. He was certain, 
that the pope, who was an holy man, and the cardinals, who 
were holy men, and the bishops, who were holy men, could 
not have taken part in anything like that which I had de- 
scribed. Jesus Christ had promised never to leave his 
church, and he would never desert the pope, and the car- 
dinals, and the bishops on such an occasion. He would 
not let them be carried away by a love of money , he would 
not let them be deceived by their officials. He therefore 
could not believe my statements, and was sure that when- 
ever the pope canonized the saint, then he ' or she was a 
saint, and it was lawful to pray to them. 

It was very perceptible that the persons present were not 
satisfied with this sort of answer ; and as my object was 
principally so to argue as to influence them, without any 



208 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



expectation of making an impression on the mind of my op- 
ponent, I repeated my question, and added, addressing those 
present, that they all had heard my enquiry — how it was as- 
certained that these persons are saints in heaven ? and that 
they also had heard his answer, namely, that they had the 
word of the pope for it, and nothing more. 

He here interrupted me, and said that at all events I could 
not deny that some of them were saints. Whatever might 
be said about St. Dominic or St. Francis or the others ; 
yet certainly, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Mary Magda- 
len, and St. Peter, and all the apostles were saints. It was 
impossible for me to deny that, and why may we not pray 
to them ? 

I felt at this moment very thankful at the course the 
conversation was taking, as I thought enough had been 
said on the foregoing point, and that it was time to turn 
to another, and he now gave it precisely the direction in 
which I had wished to turn it. I therefore said, that I was 
glad to be able to agree with him so far as the Virgin 
Mary, and Mary Magdalen, and St. Peter and all the apos- 
tles were concerned, — they were undoubtedly saints. They 
are described in Holy Scripture as such, for in the times of 
the Holy Scriptures, all christians, all believers, were called 
"saints." 

And why then, he asked, may we not pray to them ? 

Because, I replied, they cannot hear our prayers. How 
can they, who are finite beings in heaven, hear the prayers 
of men on earth ? 

It is a fatal objection to the practice of the church of 
Rome, that the departed saints are finite beings. It is in 
the nature of things impossible, that such finite creatures 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



209 



should have cognizance of all the prayers and all the 
hearts of not only one or a few individuals, hut of the thou- 
sands and millions of votaries who bow the knee to them. 
It should be remembered that the confession of sin, and 
the prayer for their intercession, are offered to these saints 
in every place throughout the whole world where the Mass 
is celebrated ; that they are offered by every individual wor- 
shipper of that church in the whole world ; that these con- 
fessions and invocations and prayers, are offered up both 
in public worship and in private devotion ; that whether in 
the wild forests of America, or in the burning climate of 
Africa, or in the sunny regions of Asia, or in the civilized 
nations of Europe, — whether among the negroes, the In- 
dians, the savages, or the civilized — wherever there is a 
member of the church of Rome, those confessions and invo- 
cations and prayers are made to these saints, and that too 
by thousands of persons at the very same instant of time ; 
so that it must be absolutely impossible for the saints, un- 
less they are omnipresent and omniscient, to hear and know 
these confessions and invocations and prayers. We feel 
that He who is the great, the immortal, the invisible, the 
only wise God, <c who is about our bed, and about our 
path, and spieth out all our ways," and who searcheth the 
heart, and trieth the reins," and who knoweth all "the se- 
cret thoughts and intents of the heart," inasmuch as " all 
things are naked and open before the eyes of Him with 
whom we have to do," — we feel, that He who is infinite, 
can, by his omnipresence and omniscience, hear, and see, 
and know every prayer of every heart. But we also feel, 
that the departed saints, being but finite creatures, cannot 
possibly hear or know the confessions, invocations and pray- 



210 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



ers that are made to them from so many millions of hearts, 
in so varied regions of the world, and at the same moment 
of time, And, therefore we argue, that, even if we waived 
our former consideration — even supposing we were certified 
as to the persons who are the saints in light — even supposing 
we had the authority of Revelation, instead of the judgment 
of the bishop of Rome, to assure us — the practice of con- 
fessing, and invoking, and praying to them would still be a 
vain invention, in consequence of their inability to hear us. 

I then addressed myself directly to our friend, and said, 
I would put the question to him, and ask him to answer it 
before all present — How it was possible that the saints in 
heaven could hear the prayers that are offered to them ? 

All present looked earnestly for his answer. He was 
fully conscious of this. He was confused and silent for 
some time. He said, at last, that he could not tell — that it 
was not to be expected that he should be able to answer such 
a question, but, perhaps, the great God revealed it to them. 

I reminded him, that that overthrew the whole notion on 
which the doctrine of praying to the saints was founded. 
That doctrine was, that we ought not to approach God 
directly or at once — that as men approach an earthly sove- 
reign, not directly or at once, but through his courtiers and 
favourites, that they may convey and commend our case to 
his clemency; so men should approach God through the 
saints, who are his courtiers and favourites, and who can 
convey our prayers and commend our petitions to his 
favorable consideration. Now, this suggestion about God 
revealing your prayers to the saints overthrows all this 
doctrine ; for it appears that these saints, who are the 
courtiers and favourites of heaven, cannot of themselves 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



211 



hear your prayers, and therefore, cannot of themselves 
convey or commend your case to the clemency of God, 
unless God shall first reveal your prayers to them. And 
thus, the process is this — your prayers ascend first to God, 
and then God reveals them to the saint, and then the saint 
prays them back again to God ! Or to make this matter 
more plain, you offer a prayer to the Virgin Mary that 
she may present it to God for you. But she being finite, 
does not hear your prayer, or know you are praying to her. 
Your suggestion, then supposes that God who has seen 
you praying and heard your prayers, reveals it to the 
Virgin Mary, and then she reveals it back again to God ! 
And thus, we find it is not the saints that present your 
prayers to God, but it is God who presents them to the 
saints, and then they present them back again to God ! 
The system is altogether unscriptural and wrong, for it 
makes God the Mediator between man and the saints, 
while it pretends to make the saints mediators between 
God and man. The truth of Scripture is — " There is one 
God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man 
Christ Jesus." 

This had an unmistakeable effect on the parties present. 
And as our friend was perplexed and silent, a good deal of 
conversation passed among those present, one with another. 
The result seemed to me very satisfactory. 

After a short time, however, in which our friend had a 
private conference with a companion, he said, that although 
he might not be able to explain every difficulty, yet he 
could see no harm in praying to the saints to pray for us — 
that they did no more than ask them as we would ask our 



212 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



friends to pray for us, and that there could be no harm in 
this. Do you not often ask your friends to pray for you ? 

I reminded him that in the u Confiteor " they went 
much further than this, for they confess their sins to Mary 
and the saints, and afterwards they pray to Mary and the 
saints to pray for them, so that it was clear they did some- 
thing more than ask the saints in the same way as we ask 
our friends to pray for us. Is there, I asked, one person 
among us makes confession of all his secret sins to his friends, 
and then asks them to pray for him? And if not, why say that 
you do no more to the saints than we do to our friends ? 

This appeal was at once responded to by all present, 
except one who had just entered and had heard neither the 
argument of my opponent nor the answer I had given. 
He was one held in very high estimation for his religious- 
ness, being a brother of a confraternity or brotherhood 
lately settled a few miles distant — a sort of monk at a 
small convent. He was a tall, slight man, always dressed 
very like a priest, but with a coat whose skirts reached his 
heels, and he seemed a sly and smooth and insidious man, 
with a forced smile ever on his lips. Such at least was the 
impression he had created among the Protestants in the 
neighbourhood ; while among the Roman Catholics, though 
with some exceptions, he was regarded as a prodigy of 
learning as well as a model of piety. His manner of enter- 
ing was marked with a courtesy that was almost servile, 
and yet with a smile that did not leave a pleasant impression 
on my mind. Perhaps, however, I had been prejudiced 
by the reports which I had previously heard. 

Our conference seemed drawing to a close, as my oppo- 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



213 



nent was unable or indisposed to say much more. He had 
begun with an overweening confidence, and he felt that he 
had failed in carrying the feelings or opinions of his hearers 
with him. The converts from Rome whom he hoped to 
reclaim, seemed more confirmed than ever. And he there- 
fore exhibited a more moderate and subdued manner. 

I was about to conclude by recapitulating the arguments 
that had passed. I reminded them that my first question, 
namely — How he knew that these persons prayed to in the 
Litany of the saints, were really saints in heaven ? — was 
not answered. And that my second inquiry, namely — How 
do the saints in heaven hear the prayers and know the 
hearts of all their worshippers in all parts of the world ? — 
was also unexplained. And I was going on with some 
general objections to the practice of praying to Mary and 
to the saints, as dishonoring to the mediation and interces- 
sion of Jesus Christ, when I was interrupted by the 
stranger. He made many apologies and asked a thousand 
pardons, and smiled most pleasantly upon all, before he 
spoke on the subject. 

He said with extreme suavity and with an expression 
that conveyed a sort of smile at my simplicity and igno- 
rance in making such an objection, — that the church of 
Rome never enjoined or required her members to pray to 
Mary or the saints, but left it as freely as most Protestants 
themselves, to the feeling of her members to do in that 
respect as they thought fit. 

I was somewhat amused at the self-satisfaction and self- 
complacency with which this was said, as if he was sure it 
would either silence me, or lead me to withdraw the objec- 
tion. I said in reply, that I had frequently heard that 



214 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



statement before, but that it was from persons who did not 
know me, and I was sure he could hardly expect me to be- 
lieve it. The facts of the case were known to every one, 
the practice was universal in the church of Rome, and a 
man must shut his eyes if he would avoid seeing it. 

He again replied in the same tone, in almost a patronising 
and compassionating way, saying that he must be forgiven 
if he thought he might understand his own religion better 
than others, — that Protestants very often make mistakes 
about the Catholic religion, — that indeed many uttered 
calumnies about her, — that in fact the Council of Trent had 
only said that it was " good and profitable " to invoke the 
saints, and had never enforced it on anyone, and that he could 
assure me, that if I or any Protestant present, were induced 
to enter the church of Rome, we should not be required to 
pray to the saints. It was always left to the feeling and 
wishes of every individual for himself. There was no force 
or constraint put on any one, for, — he added with a smile, 
you are left, as to this practice, altogether to the private 
judgment you admire so much. 

T asked him to be so kind, if he had no particular objec- 
tion, to repeat the Confiteor or form of confession. 

He immediately complied, " I confess to Almighty God, 
to the Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, to Blessed Michael the 
archangel, to Blessed John the Baptist, &c." 

I said that before any priest gave absolution to the peni- 
tent, he obliged him to make this confession, in which he 
must confess to Mary and all the saints, and then pray to 
Mary and all the saints, and until the penitent did this, you 
would not give him the absolution ! Now as this absolu- 
tion is held by you to be necessary to the communion of the 



INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



215 



church here, and to salvation hereafter, your making it 
dependent on this confession, is certainly making praying to 
the saints a necessary thing, 

He hesitated here, and evidently did not know how to 
answer me. It certainly was a difficulty, and he as cer- 
tainly was as unprepared for it. The company present 
shewed that their feeling was not in his favor. 

I continued and reminded him that this same "confiteor," 
is part and parcel of the mass or communion-service of his 
church, and that there is no communion without it; and that 
no man can be admitted to receive the communion in the 
church of Rome, unless this confiteor be first completed ; 
that is, no man is received to the communion until he has 
first confessed to Mary and all the saints, and then prayed to 
Mary and all the saints, and this you will admit is very like 
making the practice necessary. Is it not a fact, I asked him, 
that this confiteor is part and parcel of your communion 
service ? Is it not in the service of the mass ? 

He acknowledged that it was so, but in a tone very dif- 
ferent from the self-complacent and pleasing manner that 
had previously characterised him. I saw that the feeling of 
all present was entirely with me on the point, and I felt that 
my turn was now come, so I remarked that I hoped he 
would now admit that I knew something of his religion, or 
at least of the religion of the church of Rome, and that he 
would allow that the church of Rome did something more 
than say that prayer to the saints was " good and profit- 
able," inasmuch as she made it essential before giving abso- 
lution, and before admission to her communion. 

He said no more, but quietly rose and left the house. He 
beckoned to my opponent, who immediately followed him. 



216 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



I therefore said a few words to make the conclusion of our 
subject profitable; to the effect that we should find the Lord 
Jesus Christ far more loving and compassionate and sympa- 
thising than any saint, — far more ready and willing to hear 
our prayers and receive our petitions, than any saint ; and 
that our best course was to make our way to Him, and in- 
stead of stopping to ask Mary, or entreat Peter, or pray 
Paul, to go at once to Jesus himself, — to cast ourselves at 
his feet, — to tell him all our sins, our sorrows, our shame, 
our need, and ask of Him the love and forgiveness we 
require. He has Himself graciously promised that He will 
cast out none that come to Him. His words are, <f Him 
that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out." 
We soon separated. 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 



THE ORIGIN OF THIS PRACTICE IN THE CLASSIC MYTHOLOGY OF 

ROME THE CONTRAST BETWEEN FALSE AND TRUE RELIGION IN 

THE MATTER OF MEDIATION THE OPINIONS OF LEARNED HEA- 
THENS THE WORSHIP OF DULIA— VARIOUS GROUPS OF TEXTS OF 

SCRIPTURE ON THIS PRACTICE — THE ARGUMENT IN ITS FAVOR 

FROM ITS SUPPOSED HUMILITY THE ARGUMENT DISTINGUISHING 

BETWEEN REDEMPTION AND INTERCESSION THIS PRACTICE WITH- 
DRAWS THE DEVOTION FROM CHRIST. 

There are several circumstances, as to time and place and 
persons, that must greatly affect the method of conducting 
controversy. The Halls of a university — the drawing-room 
of the refined — the library of the learned — the workshop 
of the artizan — the cottage of the peasant, all require a 
different process of reasoning and illustration, and there is 
nothing more certain than that the mode of speaking to a 
sincere and religious mind, must be very different from that 
of dealing with one, that is careless upon the subject, or 
enters on it either as an intellectual conflict, or in the spirit 
of a partizan. In reference to the practice of praying to 
the saints, I have already described a conversation with 
one who was unfeignedly religious, however mistaken ; and 
another with one who acted throughout in a spirit of 
factious partizanship. There are many other ways of deal- 

L 



218 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



ing with the subject, which it would be unpardonable 
to omit here, as I have often used them, varying them ac- 
cording to the character of the parties with whom I may 
have conversed. 

I have frequently found among Roman Catholics of in- 
telligence and general reading, especially those who have 
had a classical education, that the origin and growth and 
history of any practice had considerable interest ; — a pecu- 
liar interest when the practice was traceable to the opinions 
and practices of classic times. Such persons in the church 
of Rome, are often better able to appreciate an argument 
derivable from such sources, than one founded on the clear- 
est statements of Holy Scripture. They are perhaps ac- 
quainted with the former, they are very probably unac- 
quainted with the latter. 

In nothing have I found this more successful than in 
the matter of praying to the saints. 

I have often argued, that the object of revealed religion, 
was to overthrow every false religion — every mythology 
however ancient. The pagan or heathen world had a my- 
thology with numerous gods and demigods, varying in 
every country and every clime ; Asia, Africa and Europe 
had all their different systems, and though perhaps having 
a common origin, according as conquests and migrations 
intermingled diverse people of diverse religions, they be- 
came more or less modified, till they were innumerable in 
their phases. I have also urged, that the great distinctive 
peculiarity of Christianity, as contrasted with heathenism, 
is this : — Christianity teaches " there is one God, and one 
Mediator between God and man ; " while heathenism 
taught, there were many gods, and many mediators between 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 



219 



gods and men. The classic mythology of Greece and of 
Rome held the existence of Dii Majores, superior divinities, 
and Dii Minor es, inferior divinities. It was imagined that 
the former class possessed all power and authority, and 
that the latter acted as mediators between them and 
mortals ; so that it was a part of the mythology of the age, 
that there were many gods, and many mediators. Now the 
revelation of heaven, contained in the Holy Scriptures, sets 
forth, in opposition to this, that e< there is one God, and 
one Mediator between God and man." The apostle Paul 
draws the contrast in the following striking words — "There 
is none other God but one ; for though there be that are 
called gods, [that is, nominal gods,] whether in heaven, or 
in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to 
us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, 
and we in Him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are 
all things, and we by Him." — 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6. Here is 
the point of contrast between heathen mythology and Chris- 
tian revelation. Heathenism admitted many gods, and 
many lords, or mediators, while Christianity admits only 
one God, and one Lord, or mediator. 

We charge the church of Rome with having abandoned 
this distinctive peculiarity of Christianity, and with having 
thus far apostatised into the idolatry of heathenism. We 
do not charge her with having many gods, but we charge 
her with having many mediators. Instead of holding the 
single mediation of Jesus Christ, she has a lengthy roll or 
calendar of saints — whom she herself has canonized, and 
sets forth as mediators and advocates " between God and 
man," for the purpose of bearing our wants and prayers 
before God, and pleading with Him in our behalf. 

L 2 



220 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



The answer made to this, is generally a very indignant 
denial; it is strongly and emphatically denied; it is asserted 
that no saint is regarded as a God or a goddess : It was the 
system among the heathen nations — that which was the 
classic mythology of the Roman Empire — the empire which 
has since become the field or platform of the Roman church 
— had recognized an innumerable band of gods and demi- 
gods ; yet they regarded them as in reality deities, more or 
less, potent to be appeased or pacified ; while in the church 
of Rome, the notion of any divinity resident in any saint 
was altogether and expressly discarded ; she holds the unity 
of the godhead as strongly as ourselves, and there was no 
charge she would reject more determinedly than that of 
having deified the saints, and thus, like the heathen, multi- 
plied their gods. 

In reply to this, I have stated, that I was quite aware, 
that the saints were not gods or goddesses, and were not 
regarded as such, or believed to be such in the church of 
Rome — that if they were believed to be such, there would 
be in that belief an ample justification of the religious wor- 
ship which is rendered to them — that in that case it would 
only be a matter of course, that they should be worshipped; 
but that mv objection was that when they were regarded as 
onlv dead men and dead women, whose bodies were moulder- 
ing in the grave, waiting for the day of resurrection, and 
whose souls were supposed to be in heaven; that as such, a 
religious worship so great and reverential as praying and 
confessing and making vows to them, should be offered to 
them. This I have said, was identical, not in name, but 
in reality with the practice of the classic mythology of the 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAIXTS. 



221 



Roman Empire, and was so far an apostacy from the faith 
of revealed religion. 

This apostacy of the church of Rome will be more appa- 
rent, when we reflect that the character of the mediation 
which Romanism ascribes to its saints, is precisely the same 
as that which heathenism ascribed to its demi-gods. It 
was believed among the heathen, that when a man became 
illustrious for his deeds, his conquests, his inventions, or 
aught else that distinguished him as a benefactor of man- 
kind, he could be canonized and enrolled among the inferior 
divinities. He thus became a mediator, whose sympathies 
with his fellow-men, on one hand, and whose merits with 
the gods, on the other, fitted him for the mediatorial office 
of bearing the prayers and the wants of mortals to the 
presence of the gods. The heathen philosophers, Hesiod, 
Plato, and Apuleius, all thus speak of those persons. The 
last named philosopher says, " They are intermediate intel- 
ligencers, by whom our prayers and wants pass unto the 
gods. They are the mediators between the inhabitants of - 
earth, and the inhabitants of heaven, carrying thither our 
prayers, and drawing down their blessings. They bear 
back and forwards prayers from us, and supplies from them ; 
or they are those that explain between both parties, and 
who carry our adorations, &c." This was the creed of 
heathenism, and in nothing but the name does it differ from 
the corresponding creed of Romanism. When the church 
of Rome finds members of her communion, whom she re- 
gards as signally pious, or illustrious for supposed miracu- 
lous powers, she holds that they may be canonized and en- 
rolled among her saints — that then they can mediate be- 
tween God and man — that they have sufficient favour or in- 



222 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



fluence with God to obtain compliance with our prayers, 
and therefore they are fitting objects to whom our con- 
fessions, invocations and prayers may be offered ; or as she 
expresses it in her creed, " that the saints reigning with 
Christ are to be honoured and invoked, and that they offer 
prayers to God for us." The principle of heathen Romanism, 
and the principle of Christian Romanism are one and the 
same, the only difference is in the detail of the names. And 
the origin of this practice is demonstrative of this ; for when 
it was found, after the establishment of Christianity, in the 
times of Constantine, when the great object of the court 
was to promote uniformity of religion, that many of the hea- 
then would outwardly conform to Christianity, if allowed to 
retain in private their worship of their guardian or tutelary 
divinities, they were so allowed, merely on changing the 
names of Jupiter to Peter, or Juno to Mary, still worship- 
ing their old divinities under new names, and even retain- 
ing old images that were baptized with Christian names. 
This is apparent in the writings of those times, and was 
thought a measure of wisdom — a stroke of profound policy, 
as tending to produce a uniformity of religion among the 
unthinking masses. The invocations of Juno have been 
transferred to Mary ; the prayers to Mercury have been 
transferred to Paul. We see not how the substitution of 
the names of Damian or Cosmo for those of Mercury or 
Apollo, or how the substitution of the names of Lucy or 
Cecilia for those of Minerva or Diana, can alter the idola- 
trous character of the practice. In some instances they 
have not even changed the names, and Romulus and Re- 
mus are still worshipped in Italy, under the more modern 
names of St. Romulo and St. Remigio. The simple peo- 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 



223 



pie believe them to have been two holy bishops. I have 
myself witnessed this near Florence, and even Bacchus is 
not without his votaries, under the ecclesiastical name of 
St. Bacco ! The principle and the practice of papal Rome 
are identical with the principle and practice of pagan Rome. 
Every argument to justify one, may be equally urged to 
justify or extenuate the other. And if the principle and 
practice of pagan Rome are to be denounced as idolatrous, 
I see not why the very same principle and practice in papal 
Rome should not be denounced as idolatrous likewise. 

To this point, they replied that the systems were not the 
same, that in pagan Rome they regarded these persons as 
gods or as demi-gods, as possessing at least some portion 
of the divinity, and they worshipped them and sacrificed 
to them as such; whereas in Papal or Christian Rome, they 
regarded the saints as men and women, who were the 
friends and favorites of God, as unable to assist us, or do 
anything for us, except to exert their influence with God by 
praying on our behalf — that as such the church of Rome 
never paid divine worship to the saints, but only an inferior 
or lesser worship, called SaXeia — the worship of Xarpeia 
being rendered to God alone, that of SeXeta being rendered 
to the saints, while an intermediate worship called tfirep8eX«a 
was rendered to the Virgin Mary. 

My reply to this has always been that my argument 
has not been an argument about names but about things. 
If the homage or worship paid to the Christian saints be 
identical in its nature and character to that paid to the 
heathen demi-god, it is about the thing and not the name 
we should argue. But since the question has been raised 
as to the name or kind of worship — as to rendering to the 



224 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



saints that kind and degree of religious worship called 
ogXoa, it was the very same in kind and degree, with that 
which the heathen rendered to their demi-gods. The 
Apostle Paul explicitly states this ; for describing the wor- 
ship of the classic heathen, before their conversion to 
Christianity, he says " when ye knew not God, ye paid 
the service of SgXeta to them that by nature are no Gods." 
Gal. iv. 8. This is a clear and decisive statement, shew- 
ing that while the Galatians knew not the true God, they 
rendered to their false Gods, to those who were not Gods 
by nature, the service of SeXeta, the very service which 
the church of Rome avows that she pays to the saints 
who are not gods. The very words of the Apostle's des- 
cription of the heathen state of the Galatians, describe 
with precision the actual state of the church of Rome, " ye 
pay SeXeia to them who by nature are no gods." * 

To this I am not acquainted with any reply. It effec- 
tually silences all those who attempt to justify the system 
on the plea of giving only the service of Dulia to the saints. 
It only identifies the practice of Papal Rome with the prac- 
tice of Pagan Rome, as being paid to those who are not 
gods by nature. 

But while the church of Rome has thus departed from 

* The following well-known pra3^er embodies the three species or de- 
gress of worship togother : — 

" Jesus, Mary, Joseph, I give you my heart and my soul. 
Jesus, Mary, Joseph, assist me in my last agony. 
Jesus, Mary, Joseph, I breathe out my soul to you in peace." 
To this prayer is affixed an Indulgence of one hundred days, by a Bull 
issued in 1807, and in it are the three degress of worship— Latria to 
Jesus; Dulia to Joseph ; Hyperdulia to Mary! It is rather hard for 
a simple man to distinguish such niceties. 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 225 

that which is the great distinctive mark of Christianity, as 
distinguishing- it from the classic mythology, it has also 
adopted herein a practice in direct repugnance to the whole 
language of Holy Scripture. It is impossible, owing to 
the multitude of Scriptures bearing on this point, to enter 
on any detail, and I shall, therefore, endeavour to group 
them — to classify them into certain groups of texts, which 
will sufficiently intimate the general character of all. Each 
group becomes a distinct argument in itself. 

1. The first class comprehends those passages, which 
expressly deny the mediation of any other than One, — 
even Jesus Christ. I have already referred to that place, 
where we read — "There is none other God but one; for 
though there be, that are called gods, whether in heaven 
or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many,) but 
to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all 
things, and we in Him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by 
whom are all things, and we by Him." — 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6. 
This asserts, that as there is only one God, so there is only 
one Lord or Mediator ; as it is expressed in the place — 
" There is one God and one Mediator between God and 
man, the man Christ Jesus." — 1 Tim. ii. 5. It is argued 
that although this place asserts, there is " one Mediator," 
yet that this does not imply, that there may not be many 
more mediators besides, — that the assertion of " one Medi- 
ator " is not necessarily an exclusion of many others. But 
any man, who reads the words, — " There is one God, and 
one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ 
Jesus," will perceive, that if the phrase " one Mediator " 
is to be explained as allowing the existence of many other 
mediators, then the phrase, " one God," must be also ex- 
L 5 



226 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



plained as allowing the existence of many other gods. He 
will at once perceive, that the true purport of the passage 
is, that as there is but "one God," so there is but " one 
Mediator," and that Mediator is Jesus Christ. The same 
remark is applicable to the words — If any man sin, we 
have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the right- 
eous, and He is the propitiation for our sins " — 1 John ii. 1. 
It is the intention of such language to convey, that Jesus 
Christ is the only Advocate, There is no allusion to Mary 
or Lucy or Cecilia. There is no mention of Damian, or 
Protase or Thaddeus. There is one Advocate, — one Lord, 
— one Mediator, — even as there is one God. 

2. The second class of Scripture texts consists of those, 
which ascribe the blessings and privileges of the Gospel, 
as flowing to the Church, through the mediation of Jesus 
Christ. We read, that " through Him we have access by 
one Spirit unto the Father." And again, " Now in Christ 
Jesus, ye who were afar off, are made nigh by the blood 
of Christ, — Eph. ii. 13, 18. And again, "according to 
the eternal purpose, which He purposed in Christ Jesus 
our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with con- 
fidence, by the faith of Him." — Eph. hi. 11. And again, 
— " We have peace with God, through Jesus Christ our 
Lord, by whom we have access by faith." — Rom. v. 3. 
And again, — " Ye are to offer spiritual sacrifices, accept- 
able to God by Jesus Christ." — 1 Peter i. 5. This class 
of texts might be extended to any length, for they are in- 
numerable. And their value in our present argument is, 
that they set forth Jesus Christ as the mean — the person 
mediating between us and our God — the Mediator between 
God and man, through whom we have access, in whom we 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 



227 



are accepted, by whom our prayers are presented ; while at 
the same time, there is not the remotest allusion to any 
others, — not the faintest implication that there are any 
others, through whom we can have access, or by whom 
our prayers can be made acceptable. The truth involved 
in them all is, that which Jesus Christ has Himself pro- 
claimed, — " I am the way, and the truth, and the life ; no 
man can come unto the Father but by Me." — Johnxiv. 16. 

3. There is a third class of Scriptures, that bears strongly 
on this point. It embraces those, which expressly mention 
that it is through Jesus Christ our prayers are to be offered 
to the throne of grace. His own words are — " I go to 
My Father, and whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My 
name ; that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in 
the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in My name, I will do 
it" — Johnxiv. 13, 14. Again, — " In that day ye shall 
ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatso- 
ever ye shall ask the Father in My name ; He will give it 
you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in My name ; ask, 
and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full" — John 
xvi. 23, 24. And again, — " In that day ye shall ask in 
My name ; and I say not unto you, that I will pray the 
Father for you "■ — John xvi. 26. This class of scriptures is 
of great importance in this question ; for they prove that it 
is not only in the matter of redemption, but in the matter 
of intercession, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Mediator. 
And coming from the gracious lips of Jesus Himself, they 
affix the promise of hearing and answering prayer only to 
such prayers as are offered in the name of Jesus Christ. 
There is no promise of hearing or answering any prayer, 
that may be offered through any other mediator, save Him, 



228 ' EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



who is the " one Mediator between God and man." If 
offered in his name, we have the promise, that our prayers 
shall be heard and answered. If offered in the name of 
any angel or saint, we have no promise whatever, that the 
prayer shall be heard or answered. 

4. But this suggests a fourth class of Scriptures, involv- 
ing another argument. I allude to those in which religious 
worship is stated to have been offered to angels and to have 
been refused by them. I allude to the words, — £f And I fell 
at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou 
do it not ; I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren 
that have the testimony of Jesus ; worship God ; for the 
.testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy " — Rev. xix. 
10. And again, — " I John saw these things and heard 
them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to 
worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these 
things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not ; for 
I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, 
and of them which keep the sayings of this book : worship 
God." Here was John so overpowered with the glory of 
the angel, that he prostrated himself to worship before his 
feet ; and the angel, at once and with all earnestness, for- 
bids and rebukes it. And not only so, but assigns as a 
reason, that he was himself but the servant of God, who 
alone was to be worshipped ; and therefore to each rebuke 
he adds, the solemn warning — " Worship God." So keenly 
is this rebuke of the angel felt by some of the advocates 
of the church of Rome, that they have cut it out of their 
catechism — urging the action of John in worshipping the 
angel as a proof, that we may, after his example, likewise 
worship the angels ; and then carefully suppressing the 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 



229 



answer of the angel, which censured and rebuked him ! * 
In the whole history of the church there has never been 
so wilfully perverted and falsely handled a Scripture as this, 
and in such a daring abuse of the Word of God the church 
of Rome has had no rival, but on that occasion when the 
devil quoted Scripture on the mount. 

5. But while these Scriptures illustrate our position in 
reference to the angels, there is another class that illustrates 
it in reference to the saints. I allude to the place, " As 
Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at 
his feet, and worshipped him : but Peter took him up, saying, 
Stand up ; I myself also am a man " — Acts x. 25, 26. And 
again : " The priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, 
brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have 
done sacrifice with the people. Which when the apostles, 
Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and 
ran in among the people, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why 
do you these things ? we also are men of like passions with 
you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these 
vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, 
and the sea, and all things that are therein." — Acts xiv. 13 
•—15. Here we find, that both Peter and Paul — whose 
names are in the Roman Litany as persons to whom 
prayers are to be made, and in honour of whom the sacri- 
fice of the Mass is to be offered, did refuse both the 
prayer and the sacrifice. And they both assign the same 
argument for their refusal — Peter saying " I myself also am 
a man," and Paul saying " We are men of like passions 
with you ; " showing that the fact of their being men and 

* This occurs in the Catechism published by the celebrated Dr. Doyle, 
for Ireland. 



230 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



not God, disentitled them to all religious worship. And 
feeling as we do, that it was more rational to pray to them 
when on earth, and when therefore they were able to hear, 
than to pray to them when in heaven, and where they are 
not able to hear us — feeling this, and remembering that the 
saints themselves, while they lived, refused the religious ho- 
nours that were tendered them, we conclude that they would 
still refuse, if they could know it, the confessions, and invo- 
cations and prayers that are made, and the sacrifices of 
Masses that are offered to their honour in the church of 
Rome. 

6. There is a sixth class of Scriptures — the last to which 
I shall refer, as illustrating the doctrine of our church. 
We invariably, in the Church of England, offer our prayers 
to God : and we justify this, by that large class of Scrip- 
tures, which contains the prayers and invocations of holy 
men, in all ages of the Church of God. All the prayers 
offered by Moses, by Abraham, by Hannah, by David, by 
Solomon, by Daniel, by Jonah, by the apostles, we find, 
without one solitary exception, offered neither to angel or 
saints, but only to God. And in the Psalms of David, he 
repeats his determination to invoke God, and God alone. 
" As for me," he says, " I will call on the Lord," and 
" we will call on Thy name, and " I wil] call on Him as 
long as I live." In innumerable places in the book of 
Psalms the very word " invoco " — "to invocate " — is used 
in the Vulgate or Romish Scriptures, and in every case it 
is an invocation of God, and there is not a single or soli- 
tary instance of its being made to angels or saints. The 
only case that looks like it, is in the parable of Dives and 
Lazarus ; there the rich man in the torments of hell offers 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 



231 



a prayer to Abraham. This is the only example. The only 
example of a man praying to a saint, is the example of a 
damned spirit in hell ! the only example of a man praying 
to a saint, is the example of a prayer that was refused ! and 
yet the church of Rome, rejecting the examples of such 
holy ones, as Abraham, and David, and Daniel, and Paul, 
and Peter, selects as the models to imitate, this solitary 
example of a man praying to a saint from the torments of 
hell! 

I have thus grouped these six classes of texts — each 
group in itself supplying a distinct argument against the 
practice of the church of Rome. The whole collectively 
form an insurmountable barrier against our compliance with 
her practice. We dare not abandon the mediation of Christ 
to have recourse to the mediation of saints. We cannot — 
we dare not pluck the mediatorial crown from the brow of 
Jesus, to place it on the brow of His saints. And as for 
making the saints mediators along with Him and beside 
Him — as for making them sharers or partners or rivals with 
Him in that glorious office — I feel that we should do Him 
a less dishonour in dethroning Him altogether, than in 
raising so many partners to the throne ; I feel that we 
should do Him a less dishonour in renouncing Christianity 
altogether, than in exalting this heathenish idolatry beside 
Christianity. The idol of Dagon could stand in peace 
in his temple while it was alone : the Ark of Jehovah 
could rest in peace in its Tabernacle while it was alone ; 
but when once they were brought together, the anger of 
Jehovah was kindled — the silence of the temple of Dagon 
was broken, and the idol was shattered in pieces. The 
idolatry of heathenism shall stand till the Lord's time ; the 



232 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



worship of Christianity shall stand for ever ; but if heathen- 
ism and Christianity are to be dove-tailed into each other — 
if they are to be so amalgamated as to make but one reli- 
gion in one temple (as is done in the church of Rome) — 
then is it practically to place Satan side by side with Christ 
upon the throne : the deepest and the blackest dishonour, 
that man could perpetrate against his God. 

I have as occasion offered, pressed an argument against 
praying to the saints, based on each separate class, or 
group of these scriptures, and my opponents have more or 
less endeavoured to weaken their force, though not unfre- 
quently the natural conclusion deducible from them has 
been fairly and candidly admitted. I have then usually 
called attention to the whole of these grouped together, 
as forming, like the completeness of an architectural pile, 
a powerful argument affecting the mind by its general bear- 
ing, as illustrative of the general tone of Christianity. 

To all this, they have often presented two replies. 

They first argue, that so far from being a dishonor done 
to Christ and his mediation and intercession, it has the op- 
posite tendency. It exhibits humility, as showing them to 
be so lowly and humble as that they are unwilling to come 
directly into his high and holy presence, and presuming 
only to approach him through his saints. They argue that 
it is like approaching an earthly sovereign, not directly to 
his person and presence, but through his favorites and 
courtiers, — that thus instead of being a dishonour done to 
Christ, it is rather an evidence of humility in themselves. 

To this we reply in the words of Holy Scriptures : " Let 
no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility 
and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 



233 



he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." — 
Col. ii. -18. From these words, it would appear that this 
practice was attempted to be justified in the very beginnings 
of Christianity, under this very same plea of humility ; that 
men arguing from the practice of the courts of earth, as- 
sumed an analogous practice in the courts in heaven, and 
that the Holy Scripture in this place warns us against this 
as " a voluntary humility," and then adds, " Which things 
indeed have a show of wisdom in will-worship and humility" 
— verse 23 : not the reality of a christian humility, but the 
mere appearance — the show of it ! And this was precisely 
the view taken of this text in the primitive church. 
Theodoret, who lived in the fourth century, comments on 
these words thus — " Because some persons commanded 
men to worship angels, the apostle commands the con- 
trary, namely, that they should adorn their words with 
the remembrance of the Lord Christ, and present their 
thanksgivings to God even the Father, through him, and 
not through angels. The council of Laodicea following 
this rule, and desiring to extirpate this inveterate disease, 
made a law that men should not pray to angels, and leave 
the Lord Jesus Christ." He says again : " This vice 
continued in Phrygia and Pisidia for a long time ; and 
for this reason the council assembled at Laodicea, the chief 
city of Phrygia, forbad them by a law to pray to angels ; " 
and Theodoret states that they " practised this under pre- 
tence of its humility, saying, that God was invisible, inac- 
cessible and incomprehensible, and that it was fitting that 
we should approach him through the means of the angels." 
It is a humility that injures and dishonours Christ. If 
there be one trait in His character, if there be one jewel in 



234 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



His diadem, more conspicuous than another, it is His loving- 
kindness and compassion, evidencing his willingness to hear 
and receive us. Every act he performed, — every suffering 
he endured, — every word he uttered, is an evidence of his 
willingness to hear and receive us. There are his many 
promises ; there are his many invitations ; there are his 
many entreaties, to induce us to come to Him ; and they 
all are so many evidences of his willingness to hear and 
receive us. He has exhibited Himself in every conceivable 
way, that could evidence his accessibleness — his willing- 
ness to be approached by the poorest and humblest sinner. 
He has shown this to such a degree, that we cannot hesi- 
tate for a moment in stating, that no man can rightly 
peruse the Holy Scriptures, without the fullest conviction 
that Jesus Christ is at all times, and under all circum- 
stances, infinitely more willing to hear our petitions, than 
any of the angels or saints can be, to be the bearers of 
them. And, therefore, we conclude, that this plea of 
humility, while it is only " a show of humility,'* is really 
throwing a doubt on the invitations — putting an affront 
upon the compassions, and an insult upon the tenderness of 
Jesus Christ. 

The second answer which they urge, and indeed very 
frequently urge, against the inference from all the language 
of Scripture is, — that though applicable as proving Jesus 
Christ to be the only mediator of redemption, they do not 
prove him to be the only mediator of intercession. And 
therefore, when it is proved that " there is one God, and 
one mediator between God and man," the words having 
reference to Christ, as the mediator of redemption, do not 
exclude the saints as mediators of intercession. 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 



235 



The rejoinder to this case is clear. It is evident that 
this objection assumes, that when the Holy Scriptures state, 
" There is one God, and one Mediator between God and 
man," they do not refer to a mediator of intercession ; 
whereas the context proves beyond all question, that in 
that very place the reference is to Jesus Christ as a media- 
tor of intercession, as well as a mediator of redemption. 
The whole passage is as follows : " I exhort, therefore, that 
first of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of 
thanks be made for all men : for kings, and for all that are 
in authority ; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life 
in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and accep- 
table in the sight of God our Saviour ; who will have all 
men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the 
truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between 
God and men, the man Christ Jesus : who gave Himself a 
ransom for all, to be testified in due time." — 1 Tim. ii. 
1 — 6. The subject matter of this exhortation is " suppli- 
cations, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks." And 
it encourages us to these exercises and privileges, in the 
assurance that we have a mediator in Jesus Christ, through 
whom they shall be presented unto God, and by whom 
they shall be acceptable, as He has laid down His life as a 
ransom for us. And yet, though " supplications, prayers, 
intercessions, and giving of thanks," are expressly the sub- 
ject of this Scripture, the advocates of Rome would en- 
deavour to persuade us, that the Lord Jesus Christ is not 
here described as the Mediator of intercession ! 

And this brings this subject to its true conclusion. In 
the religion of revelation, there is no one truth more cer- 
tain, as there is none more comforting, than the mediation 



236 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



and intercession of Jesus Christ. It is stated that he is 
" the High Priest of our profession," and in that capacity 
he is ever in the presence of the Almighty, making in- 
tercession in behalf of his people ; there He ever presents 
them before the throne of grace, He pleads in their behalf, 
He has suffered for them, He has poured forth His blood 
for them, He has died on the cross for them, and now in 
the heaven of heavens, He presents His bleeding sacrifice, 
His spotless work, His everlasting righteousness, His infi- 
nite merits, His effectual intercession for them. It is writ- 
ten, "He is able to save to the uttermost, all that come 
unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make interces- 
sion for them." And then, there is love — such love in the 
depth of His heart, for those whom He came to seek and 
to save — a love, the length, and breadth, and depth, and 
height, of which no man can comprehend — a love, that like 
His own nature is infinite ; and with such a High Priest 
pleading for us, and such love yearning towards us, it seems 
a cold and sad return on our parts, to look on all that 
prevailing intercession and all that wondrous love, as ineffi- 
cient, so that we must go seek the intercession and depend 
on the love of supposed saints, who know nothing of us, 
have never died for us, and have never shown any love 
towards us. St. Chrysostom has a beautiful passage on 
this subject. In allusion to the woman of Canaan he says, 
" God is always near us : if we entreat a man, we must en- 
quire what he is doing, and whether he is asleep or at 
leisure, and perhaps the servant gives no answer. But with 
God there is nothing of all this, wherever you go and call 
on Him, He hears. With Him there is no want of leisure, 
no mediator, no servant to keep you off. Mark the wisdom 



THE WORSHIP OF THE SAINTS. 



237 



of the woman of Canaan, she does not pray to James, she 
does not beseech John, she does not fly to Peter, but she 
breaks through them all saying, I want no mediator, but 
taking repentance as my spokesman, I come to the fountain 
itself; it was for this He left the heavens, it was for this He 
became flesh, it was that such as I might have boldness to 
speak to Himself ; I want no mediator with Him. Have 
mercy upon me." This is the true spirit of the Gospel. 
The system of the church of Rome teaching her members 
to trust to the intercession of the saint, is an injury to the 
intercession of Jesus Christ as if she thought this required 
their assistance ; and her teaching her members to rest 
on the love of the saints, implies a want of faith in the 
infinite love of him " who hath loved us and given himself 
for us." And it has the unhappy effects of drawing away 
the mind and heart from Christ, and directing prayer, and 
praise, and thanksgiving, and love, and worship, to the 
saints instead of to the Saviour, — to the creature instead 
of the Creator. St. Paul tells us this was the characteristic 
of the heathen Romans, that " they served the creature more 
than the Creator." 

And it is well worthy of remark, that it was this charac- 
teristic of the ancient heathenism of Rome, that it is said by 
modern Roman Catholic divines to have been the cause of 
saint-worship not being permitted among primitive chris- 
tians. Delahogue allows this in his work, forming as it does 
the class book of Maynooth. It is a fact on which there 
is no question among the learned of all churches, — it is 
admitted by the ablest divines of the church of Rome, that 
prayer to the saints was altogether unpractised and unknown 
among the christians of the early ages; and as the evidence 



238 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



of this fact is so clear and strong as an argument against 
this novel practice of the church of Rome, the divines of 
that church are obliged to explain the absence or omission 
of this practice in the best and purest time, by telling 
us that praying to the saints was not countenanced, lest 
it should seem to be identified with the praying to the 
demigods, — lest the heathen and the Christian practice 
should seem alike . They tell us that on this account prayers 
to saints were not permitted till heathenism was abolished ; 
namely, for the first three centuries after Christ, and that it 
was not introduced till Christianity was established under 
Constantine. Whatever may be thought of the ingenuity of 
this excuse, it is a full admission that it was no part or 
practice of the Church of Christ in its earliest and purest 
ages. 

Note. — They sometimes argue from Rev. v. 8. They argue here that 
this vision represents the saints in heaven, offering up the prayers of the 
saints on earth. The answer to this is, that it is hy no means clear, that 
this is the meaning of the passage at all. The parties are the four beasts 
and the four-and-tiventy elders, which when more carefully rendered, will 
be the four living ones and the four- and- twenty presbyters; — the four liv- 
ing ones being the emblems or symbols of the four great empires of the 
earth ; and the presbyters being the officials or ministers of the church 
on earth : so that the vision rather represents the triumph of Christianity, 
when the four empires of earth, once pagan persecutors, shall be con- 
verted ; and with the ministry of Christ's Church, shall present their 
prayers, which will then be the prayers, not of pagans, but of Christians — 
not of unbelievers, but of saints before the throne of God. The similar 
passage on earth in Rev. viii. 3, has a similar solution. The prayers of 
"saints" are the prayers of Christians on earth, who are always called 
" saints " in the New Testament ; and these prayers are here described 
as presented to God by the great angel— by Him who is the Great High 
Priest of the church. 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



THE ORIGINAL OF THE "WORSHIP OF MART THE SYMBOLS OF CREA- 
TION AMONG THE HEATHEN WHETHER WORSHIPPED AS A GOD- 
DESS OR A WOMAN INFERIOR KINDS OF WORSHIP WHETHER 

HER MERITS ARE PLEADED WITH GOD WHETHER SHE IS PRATED 

TO FOR HER OWN POWER THE SABBATINE PRIVILEGE HER 

OMNIPOTENCE ACCORDING TO ST. ALPHONSO AND ST. BERN ARDINE 

SHE IS PLACED IN SOME DEVOTIONAL BOOKS ON AN EQUALITY 

WITH CHRIST — IN OTHERS ABOVE HIM, AS BEING MORE MERCI- 
FUL, AND PRATERS MORE ACCEPTABLE THROUGH HER THAN 

THROUGH HIM THESE DEVOTIONAL BOOKS ARE AUTHORISED, 

WHILE THE HOLT SCRIPTURES ARE SUPPRESSED THE LANGUAGE 

OF HOLT SCRIPTURE AS TO THE VIRGIN MART. 

The distinctive characteristic of the church of Rome at the 
present day, is the worship of the Virgin Mary; not that it 
is a modern invention, but that it has of late years assumed 
a prominence, all-pervading and all-absorbing, which it had 
not known before. I once remarked to an ecclesiastic in 
the city of Rome, that it appeared to me that the religion of 
Christ, as received in that city, would be more fitly called 
the religion of Mary. He replied, approving the sentiment, 
and adding that every year it was becoming more and 
more developed as — the religion of Mary ! 



* 



240 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



It is important, therefore, that we should understand 
something of the nature and extent of this worship. 

In almost all the devotional books of the church of Rome 
the Virgin Mary is styled — the mother of God, and in 
most of the pictures and images in the churches she is 
crowned and sceptred and enthroned as — the queen of 
heaven. These titles are so frequently given to her, that 
they are regarded as distinctively belonging to her, as is 
that of — God of heaven, to the Almighty himself. 

The origin of this is far deeper than a mere corruption 
of Christianity. It has its roots as deep and as universal 
as human nature. It originated in a symbol — a symbol 
universal among the nations in the darkness of Heathenism. 
The ideal of the creative or productive power was intimately 
connected in their minds with the idea of maternity. It was 
a power that conceived and brought forth, and in ages in 
which it was thought necessary to represent the creator or 
creative power under a symbol, it was not unnatural to adopt 
the symbol of a woman, as developing this idea of maternity. 
Accordingly, in almost all the mythologies of ancient times, 
whether in the east or in the west, there was a female divi- 
nity — a goddess whose maternity was worshipped. In one 
mythology it was Astarte of the Assyrians, in another it was 
Ashtoreth of the Sidonians ; in another it was Bawaney of 
the Hindoos. In the classic mythology of Greece and of 
Rome, eclectic as it was, there was a Venus adopted from 
one, and a Juno from another. It is said, that the image 
of Diana of Ephesus was that of a female, from whose body 
in every part, there seemed to be issuing all the various 
animals of creation, symbolizing the ^conception and pro- 
duction of all things. The Egyptians on one hand, and 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



241 



the Etruscans on the other, had their Isis, the same symbol, 
a female divinity whom they regarded as "the mother of 
the gods." Even the Scandinavian mythology had its 
Freigha ; and of the two great systems of religion that held 
possession of the platform of the Roman Empire, namely, 
Judaism, and the classic mythology, the latter styled its 
Juno, the " Queen of Heaven," and the former, when cor- 
rupted by the admixture of the heathenism around it, was 
charged by the prophet Jeremiah, with having also its 
cc Queen of Heaven." Jer. vii. 18, and Jer. xliv. 17. This 
divinity in all the systems had a mysterious and indefinite 
position. Her power and province were left very much to 
the imaginations of her votaries ; it would seem as if it was 
an element congenial with all natural mythologies, as an- 
swering some impulse or feeling in the fallen and natural 
heart, that there should be the embodiment of some such 
idea — the symbol of the creation or production of all things, 
enthroned among the gods, as the Queen of Heaven. Now 
the argument against the church of Rome is, that she has 
adopted that element of heathenism — that instead of imita- 
ting the prophet Jeremiah in denouncing this worship 
among the Jews — instead of following the apostle Paul in 
opposing it among the Gentiles — instead of fighting against 
this tendency of the people of the Roman empire, she 
rather encouraged it ; and though perhaps with the zealous 
but ill-regulated desire to induce a more easy and extended 
profession of Christianity, she allowed the easterns to ac- 
cept the Virgin, instead of Astarte — their former queen of 
heaven, and permitted the westerns to receive Mary, instead 
Juno, the queen of heaven they had previously worshipped. 
It is not the least striking fact connected with this, that the 

M 



242 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



two favourite titles ascribed to Mary in the church of Rome 
— namely the "queen of Heaven/' and " mother of God," 
are the very same titles ascribed to this female divinity — 
the goddess of the ancients. She was entitled in the east, 
— the mother of the gods, and in the west — the queen of 
heaven ! But, however it originated, there is no doubt 
that Mary is now as much recognized and worshipped 
in the Roman church, as was the queen of heaven in the 
wide platform of the Roman Empire. In all its essential 
elements the Roman empire and the Roman church — the 
Pagan Rome, and the Papal Rome are in accord in this 
matter. The transfer to Mary, of all the devotion previously 
paid to a Juno, an Astarte, an Ashteroth, or an Isis, does 
not alter the essence of the thing. It is as much idolatry 
to worship Mary, as it was to worship Juno, as the queen 
of heaven. 

There are persons in Italy and Spain who freely and 
readily admit much of this, and say that the prevalence of 
this conception, of a female divinity among so many ancient 
mythologies, was as it were the dispersed and scattered ele- 
ment of a coming truth — a sort of all-pervading prophecy 
or anticipation of a future reality — a looking into the 
depths of the future, as " coming events cast their shadows 
before," and that all was to be fulfilled in the exaltation of 
the Virgin Mother. They imagine, that as the promise of 
a Messiah was once universally spread among the families 
of Noah, and as it passed by tradition through many gene- 
rations, so the woman, through whom He was to come, be- 
came a hope, a creation in their mythologies, and was thus 
the great architype of all these female divinities of the hea- 
then world. Persons who believe this, argue, that when 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



243 



the nations lost all knowledge of the true God, and created 
false gods for their worship, and worshipped them in his 
stead, their idolatry consisted not in their worship of a 
God, but in their worshipping a false one ; and in like 
manner the idolatry of the heathen was not their worship- 
ping a female divinity, but in worshipping these that were 
false, instead of her w r ho is revealed as the only true one — 
even Mary. This view of the subject is a favourite one in 
countries where Mary is worshipped, not indeed in name 
and title, as a goddess, but with all the same reverence and 
devotion and service and worship, as if she were a goddess. 
There can be no question as to the fact, that, in those 
countries she is the divinity, prayed to more frequently — 
loved more fervently — worshipped more devoutly, and de- 
pended on more entirely, than either God, the Son, or the 
Holy Spirit. Whether the church of Rome approves of 
this is another question ; but of the matter of fact, there can 
be no doubt w r hatever. 

All this, it is apparent, only makes the charge of idol- 
atry more strictly and painfully applicable. That which 
was the religion of Christ is gradually becoming the reli- 
gion of Mary. And in these countries it is customary, as 
with us to speak of the religion of Christ, so with them to 
speak of the religion of Mary. 

The answer, however, which they usually give on this 
subject is, that they do not worship Mary as a goddess, or 
as a divinity — that they regard her as a creature ; the most 
exalted of all, even as queen of angels and of men, but 
a creature still — that they feel as strongly as ourselves, 
the heinous sin of giving divine w T orship to a creature. — 
that they give to her a different worship — an inferior wor- 
M 2 



244 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



ship to that which they give to God. And that, inasmuch 
as they do not worship her as God or as a goddess, they 
are not liable to the charge of idolatry, which in their view, 
consists of giving to a creature that kind and degree of 
worship which belongs only to the Creator. 

I have answered this, by reminding them that our charge 
against the church of Rome, was not that she worshipped 
Mary as a goddess ; our charge was, that she worshipped 
her as a creature ; — that knowing her to be only a creature, 
a woman, she worshipped her as God only ought to be 
worshipped. If the church of Rome regarded her as a 
goddess, and worshipped her as such, it would at least be 
consistent; but regarding her as a creature, and worshipping 
her as a woman, with a religious worship which belongs 
exclusively to God, is the very essence of idolatry. 

I have often asked yet further — wherein consists the 
difference between the worship paid to Mary, and the wor- 
ship rendered to God. The offering prayer — the presenting 
hymns of praise — the making solemn vows — the consecration 
of the votary to her service — the devoting gifts and offer- 
ings of wealth — the dedication of children — the sacrifice of 
the mass — all these are done to Mary, and in honor of 
Mary as well as to God and in honor of God. They pray 
to her by her sufferings beneath the cross. They plead 
her merits even as they do those of Jesus Christ. And 
therefore, I ask, — wherein consists the distinction in the 
church of Rome, between the worship paid to Mary, and 
the worship paid to God ? 

They generally answer this, by stating that there are two 
great points of distinction — that these are so marked as to 
place the two kinds and degrees of worship as wide as the 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



245 



poles. The first is, that they never pray through the merits 
of Mary, but only through the merits of Christ ; pleading 
not the merits of a creature, but only the merits of Christ. 
And secondly, that they never pray to Mary as if she could 
grant anything of herself, of her own power, as if she 
could grant any blessing, but only to exert her influence 
with Jesus Christ, that He may grant the petition. They 
state that they never pray for anything by her merits, or 
ask her to grant anything by her own power. 

This is a statement of fact, and must be examined like 
every assertion of fact, and accepted or rejected according 
to the evidence. 

The right and just course in such an investigation is to 
lay aside the private statements or practices of individuals, 
and to open the devotional books — the prayer-books in use 
in the church of Rome : And especially those that are the 
authorized formularies of that church. 

Is it a fact that in the church of Rome they do not pray 
through the merits of the Virgin Mary ? 

I. The following is the form of absolution as given in 
"The Ursuline Manual" — a book in very general use 
among the Roman Catholics of England. 

"I absolve thee from all thy sins in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. 
May the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of 
the blessed Virgin Mary, and of all the saints, may what- 
ever good thou shalt do, or whatever evil thou shalt suffer, 
be to thee unto the remission of thy sins, the increase of 
grace and the recompense of life everlasting. Amen.'* 
Edition of 1835. p. 159. 



246 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



II. In the " brief account of the Virgin Mary of Mount 
Carmel," published in Ireland, France, and Rome, is the 
following explanation of an indulgence. 

" It is a grace by the means of which, some condition 
being annexed by the person granting it, are remitted the 
penances, which should otherwise be done in this world 
or in Purgatory, for the actual sins already remitted through 
the infinite merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the 
Blessed Virgin Mary." 

III. In the *' collection of prayers and pious works to 
which indulgences are attached," published with authority 
at Rome, 1844, p. VIII., we read as follows : — 

" This is a treasure, which continues for ever in the light 
of God, the treasure of the merits and satisfaction of Jesus 

Christ, of the most Blessed Virgin Mary Jesus Christ 

together with his super-abundant passion left to the church 
militant on earth, an infinite treasure, not deposited in a 
measure of meal or buried in a field, but committed to the 
church to be dispensed in a wholesome way to the faithful 
by the blessed Peter, who holds the keys of heaven, and 
by his successors the vicars of Jesus Christ on earth. To 
the abundance of this treasure, the merits of the Blessed 
Virgin Mary assist as a help." 

IV. "The Wonders of God," was published in Rome 
1841, and in part I., and wonder 23, the following is re- 
lated with approval, of the prioress of St. Martin's at Milan. 

" She was accustomed to pray for the grace of the liber- 
ation (of the souls in purgatory,) through the merits of 
the most precious blood of the Saviour, and through the 
ardent love which he had shewn on the cross. To this 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



247 



prayer she gave new efficacy by asking this grace through 
the merits of the Divine Mother, especially through the 
sufferings she endured at the foot of the cross." 

V. In " The Missal," published in England for the use 
of the Laity, 1836, p. 527, there is the following prayer to 
be used in a votive mass. 

• " O God, who by the most glorious mother of thy Son, 
wast pleased to appoint a new order in thy church for 
delivering the faithful out of the hands of the infidels, grant, 
we beseech thee, that we also may be delivered from the 
slavery of the devil, by her merits and prayers, whom we 
devoutly honor in the instruction of so charitable a work.'' 

VI. In "the Roman Breviary," in the winter portion 
and in the office of Mary, is the following prayer. 

" May the Lord conduct us to the kingdom of heaven by 
the prayers and merits of the Blessed ever-Virgin Mary and 
all the saints." 

VII. In the service of the Mass, in what is called " the 
ordinary of the mass," the priest bows to the altar and 
prays, — I cite their own English translation, — 

" We beseech thee by the merits of thy saints, whose relics 
are here, and of all thy saints, that thou wouldest vouchsafe 
to forgive me all my sins. Amen." 

VIII. Again in the same, after they commemorate the 
living, the Priest goes on : — 

" Communicating with and honouring in the first place 
the memory of the ever-glorious Virgin Mary, mother of 
our Lord and God Jesus Christ, as also of his blessed apos- 
tles and martyrs, — through whose merits and prayers, grant 
that we may be always defended by the help of thy protec- 
tion, through the same Christ our Lord, Amen." 




248 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



These eight illustrations, sad and painful as they are, 
might be multiplied indefinitely from the Breviary, the 
Missal, and the ordinary books of devotion. They set at 
rest the question, as to whether the Roman Catholics pray 
through the merits of the Virgin Mary. They seem not 
content with the infinitely precious merits of Christ, but 
require also the merits of Mary ! There is nothing more 
heart- saddening than this ; for there is nothing more dis- 
honouring to the merits of the Saviour, or so revolting to 
the spirit of a true Christianity. It is as if the merits of 
Jesus Christ were not adequate — as if they needed the 
merits of Mary — as if the Creator needed the creature ! 

There is a second averment. It is to the effect that 
though they pray to Mary, it is only for her intercession, 
and that they never suppose that she has any power or can 
herself do anything, but only that she intercedes for those 
that pray to her. 

This likewise is a question of fact, and must be deter- 
mined, not by the statement of an individual as to his own 
belief or practice, but by evidence. 

In illustrating this from their books, there is not the least 
difficulty except in the abundance of evidence, and still more 
in the grief and sorrow that every holy mind will feel in the 
perusal of their language. 

One illustration is from a work published in these coun- 
tries, and most widely circulated. It is entitled "a brief 
account of Indulgences, &c, conferred on the order &c, 
of the Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel." Dublin, 1826, p. 13. 

" The affection of an earthly mother bears no proportion 
to that of the Virgin, who, to shew herself truly the mo- 
ther of those who wear her holy scapular, did not rest fully 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



249 



satisfied with having preserved them from bodily harm, 
and kept them out of hell, as far as lies in her, through 
the mediation of her powerful protection, but also promised 
as a truly loving mother, not enduring the sight of her 
dear and beloved children suffering in the flames of purga- 
tory, that she would free them as soon as possible, parti- 
cularly on the first Saturday after their death, as being a 
day set aside for her honour, and bring them to eternal joy 
in paradise." 

The whole is minutely related, and confirmed by pope 
John XXII. in the Bull published in March, 1822. 

Again, in order that the authority for all this may be 
clearly seen and received by the members of the Order, 
they are informed not only of the grant of this Bull of pope 
John XXII. but of its confirmation by no less than four 
subsequent popes. It continues, 

"This extraordinary Bull, called "The Sabbatine," was 
confirmed in 1412, by the Sovereign Pontiff, Alexander V. 
by another Bull, which commences, Tenore cujusdam Privi- 
legii, and by Clement VII. in his apostolic Bull given in 
favor of the Carmelites, in 1524, the first words of which 
are Dilecti filii, which, after recounting the Indulgences and 
privileges given to these, continues thus, e And on their 
departure from this life, the glorious Virgin mother of God 
herself, will, on the Saturday succeeding the death of the 
members, whether brother monks, or sister nuns, visit 
them, and free their souls from the punishment of purga- 
tory.' Pius V. confirmed their privilege — in a Bull in 
1566, and the Sovereign Pontiff, Gregory, in a Bull in 1577, 
which contains a confirmation of all favors, indulgences, 
and privileges of the Carmelite order, specifying the day 
M 5 



250 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



to be Saturday, in conformity with the revelation of the 
Virgin, &c." 

This descent of the Virgin into purgatory, apparently de- 
signed as a set-off or parallel to our Lord's supposed descent 
to the same region, is not only published in these countries, 
but also published with authority at Rome itself, during the 
time of Gregory XVI. The following is from the " Won- 
ders of God." Rome, 1841. vol. ii. p. 31. 

"Among the other devotions to the Queen of Heaven, 
which give great hope, and promise the precious grace of 
rising quickly from the sufferings of purgatory and passing 
away to the joys of heaven, the principle is that which is 
commonly called that of Mount Carmel — especially in the 
Bull, called "The Sabbatine," and in the decree of the sacred 
congregation, they assert, that the most Blessed Virgin, is 
ascertained to concede to the professors of this devotion 
— the liberation from purgatory, to their great relief from 
punishment, on the first Saturday after their death." 

Here is the Bull of one pope confirmed by four Bulls 
from four subsequent popes, and republished by Gregory 
XVI. in 1.841, teaching that the Virgin Mary herself visits 
purgatory every Saturday and releases certain privileged 
persons. The extent of the order of the scapular, or as 
they are usually called Carmelites, and Scapularians, is 
demonstrative of the extent of faith in the reality of this ; 
and as it is impossible to call this the intercession of Mary 
— as it can only be regarded as her own act — the act of 
descending to purgatory — the act of saving from its suffer- 
ings — the act of bringing the souls thence to heaven, proves 
the belief of her having power in herself to do these things. 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



251 



It is evidently not her asking her Son, or interceding with 
him to do them, but she does them herself. 

The following illustrates the full extent of the power she 
is supposed to possess, not indeed inherently, but by 
cession from her Son. We read in " The glories of Mary," 
by Saint Alphonso de Liguori. 

" St. Bernardine of Sienna does not fear to advance that 
all, even God himself, is subject to the empire of Mary. 
The saint wishes to insinuate thereby, that God hears 
Mary's prayers, as if they were commands. The Lord, O 
Mary, says St. Anselm, has so exalted you that his favor 
has rendered you omnipotent ! yes, says Richard of St. 
Lawrence, Mary is omnipotent, for according to all laws 
the queen enjoys the same privileges as the king, and 
that power may be equal between the Son and the mother. 
Jesus has rendered Mary omnipotent ; the one is omnipo- 
tent by nature, the other is omnipotent by grace," c. vi. 
sec. 1 . 

There is here an ascription of the Divine attribute of om- 
nipotence to Mary. There is also an assertion of an 
equality in "privilege" and in " power" with Jesus 
Christ. There is also a statement that God himself is sub- 
ject to the empire of Mary. As this awful statement pro- 
fesses to be founded on a saying of Saint Bernardine, the 
original words may here be cited. The words of Saint 
Bernardine are these — 

" As many creatures serve the glorious Virgin Mary as 
serve the Trinity, namely, all created things, whatsoever 
degree they may hold in creation, whether spiritual as 
angels, or rational as man, or corporeal as the heavenly 
bodies or the elements. And all things that are in heaven 



252 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



and in earth, whether they be the damned or the blessed, 
all which are brought under the government of God, are like- 
wise subject to the glorious Virgin. Forasmuch, as He, who 
is the Son of God, and of the blessed Virgin, wishing to 
make the sovereignty of his mother equal in some sort to 
the sovereignty of his Father, even He, who was God, 
served his mother on earth. Whence, Luke ii. 51, it is 
written of the Virgin and the glorious Joseph, ' He was 
subject unto them,' that as this proposition is true — all 
things are subject to the command of God, even the Virgin 
herself, so this again is also true — all things are subject to 
the command of the Virgin, even God himself" 

These words make the government of the Virgin co-ex- 
tensive with the government of God. They also expressly 
state that Christ has willed the sovereignty of the Mother 
to be equal with the sovereignty of the Father. They also 
state that as the Virgin is subject unto God, so it is equally 
true that God is subject to the Virgin ! 

These are the sentiments of saint Bernardine and saint 
Alphonso de Liguori. And in the act of canonization of the 
saints, it is declared by the church of Rome, that there is 
no error contained in their writings. These words, therefore, 
are pronounced to be free from error ! And yet a Christian 
cannot read them without inexpressible sadness and dread. 

The system of placing Mary practically on an equality 
with Christ is carried out in a variety of ways. The fol- 
lowing prayer is a well-known instance. 

" Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, have mercy on us. 

" Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, receive my last breath. 

"Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, receive me now and in the 
hour of death." 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



253 



Another illustration is in the closing words of " The 
glories of Mary." 

" O Jesus ! O Mary ! may your names live in my heart 
and in " the hearts of all men ! may I forget all other 
names in order to remember your admirable names alone ! 
O Jesus, my Redeemer ! O Mary, my Mother ! when my 
last hour shall come, when my soul shall be at the eve of 
its departure from the world, grant, I beseech you, that 
my last words may be — Jesus ! Mary ! I love you ! Jesus ! 
Mary ! I give you my heart and my soul. Amen." 

This certainly places Mary on an equality with Christ as 
one to be prayed to, invoked and loved alike. The Spanish 
form of the doxology is still more striking. 

" Glory be to the Father. 

" Glory be to the Son. 

" Glory be to the Holy Ghost. 

" Glory be to the Most Holy Virgin. 

" Throughout all ages, for ever and ever. Amen ! " * 

It is due to many Roman Catholics of the Laity, to say 
that I have never read these and similar passages from the 
devotional books of the church of Rome, while conversing 
with her members, without observing shame and confusion 
in the faces of my opponents. It is the homage they are 
forced to pay to truth. It is always apparent that they 
feel such language to be blasphemous and idolatrous ; or at 
least that it approaches thereto — that it justifies the strong 
feeling that we manifest against the practice ; — that such 
language completely cuts away the ground under their 
feet — and it comes before them vexatiously when arguing 
* See Meyrick's "Working of the Church in Spain.'" 



254 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



with us — and they have no answer or explanation further 
than, that these passages have a meaning widely different 
from what they seem to convey — that they are to be under- 
stood in what they call a Catholic sense — that a Catholic 
reads them with a Catholic sense; and that they do no harm 
to one, who knows that however idolatrous and blasphe- 
mous the language may seem, yet it is not to be understood 
in that sense. I have asked what that Catholic sense was, 
and I never could learn it. It certainly must be something 
very different from the natural construction of the words. 

I have pressed this matter farther ; I have asserted that 
in these books they not only place Mary sometimes on an 
equality with Christ, but sometimes above him. 

And first for placing her on an equality with Christ. 

I can never, while I live, forget the shock I received 
when I first saw in their churches in Italy the Virgin Mary 
crowned as Queen of Heaven, seated on the same throne 
with Jesus crowned as King of Heaven. They were the 
God-man and the God-woman enthroned alike. In all my 
previous experience of Romanism it never occurred to me 
for a moment that anything so truly awful could possibly 
have been perpetrated. I felt the shock ; every holy feeling 
felt its violence ; no heathen idolatry could have done 
more. There were Jesus and Mary, crowned alike, en- 
throned alike, bearing a sceptre alike. There was nothing 
to distinguish one above the other. They appeared pre- 
cisely like a Jupiter and Juno, like a man and wife, like a 
king and queen. And I loathed in my soul such represen- 
tations, as elevating the creature Mary to a level with the 
God Christ, or lowering the God Christ to a level with the 
creature Mary. It made them both on an equality. They 



THE VIRGIxV MARY. 



255 



were God and Goddess, or they were merely man and 
woman. I soon found that this pervaded the whole religion 
of Italy. However kindly I might be disposed to interpret 
or explain, and however gently I might be disposed to 
judge, I could not shut my eyes or ears to the evidence 
that there was a manifest tendency to exalt Mary to a 
level with Jesus, that she should be crowned, sceptred and 
enthroned alike, and that she should be loved and served 
and worshipped alike, and that Christianity should be made 
the religion of Mary as well as the religion of Christ.* 

But this was by no means the only or most sad evidence 
of an equality. It is painful — it is saddening, to commit 
the dark and dreary reality to paper. It is enough to 
freeze the blood of any Christian man ; and yet it is the 
common, I may say, the universal faith of Southern Eu- 
rope. It is this :— whatever were the mysteries or glories 
connected with the miraculous conception, the miraculous 
birth, the miraculous resurrection, the miraculous ascen- 
sion ; whatever were the mysteries of wonder and of awe 
in the history of Jesus Christ, they are all copied or rather 
travestied and applied to the Virgin Mary ; so as that she 
may appear as wondrous a person as Jesus Christ, as 
having been characterized by an immaculate conception as 
miraculous, a birth as wonderful, a resurrection as marvel- 
lous, and an ascension or assumption as glorious. What- 

* In the Baptistery of Parma, there is a representation of the Trinity. 
At the top of the triangle is the Father. At the two angles of the base 
are the Son and the Mother ; the two arras of the Father resting on the 
heads of the Son and Mary, form the legs of the triangle ; while the arms 
of the Son, extended to the head of Mary, form the base. I looked at it 
with horror ! The Sacristan smiled, and called it the Trinity of the 
Father, the Son, and the Virgin 



256 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



ever were the miracles of awe and of mystery and of glory 
connected with one, are claimed and attributed to the other. 
And to such an extent is this carried, that in some of their 
churches the paintings on one side represent the striking 
incidents that give wonder to the birth and life and death 
of Jesus Christ, and on the other side the very same or 
similar incidents as characteristic of the birth and life and 
death of the Virgin Mary. For example, if on one side of 
the church there is painted the angel announcing to Mary 
the miraculous conception of Jesus, it is paralleled by 
another on the other side, representing an angel announcing 
to Anna the immaculate conception of Mary. If there be 
on one side the miraculous birth and the infancy of the 
Son, there will be on the other the birth and infancy of the 
mother. If here there is a representation of the reception 
of the Child Jesus by the High Priest in the temple, there 
is another representing the presentation of the child Mary 
under similar circumstances. In one compartment there 
may be seen represented the death of the Saviour, and 
opposite may be seen in another compartment a representa- 
tion of all connected with the death of the Virgin. Here 
we see portrayed all connected with the resurrection of the 
Lord, and there we see in like manner all the apocryphal 
details of the resurrection of the Mother. On one side 
may be seen all that human art can do to exhibit the glories 
of the ascension of Jesus Christ, and on the other side all 
that the most exquisite art can accomplish to represent the 
glories of the assumption of Mary. Here the eye is arrested 
to see the paintings of Jesus Christ entering the heavens 
and enthroned and crowned as the King of heaven, and 
there the eye is attracted to another painting of Mary 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



257 



entering the heavens and enthroned and crowned as Queen 
of heaven. In all the miracles and mysteries of His life 
she is placed on a level with Him. If she is not the 
rival, she certainly is the equal in every wonder and mys- 
tery. And therefore in one half the churches of Italy, 
Mary may be seen crowned with a like crown, seated 
on the same throne, and holding a similar sceptre with 
Jesus Christ. It is impossible to see all this and not feel 
that it embodies an item in the popular faith of the church 
of Rome ; and that she, in authorizing these pictures in 
her churches, does authorize the notion, so prevalent, that 
the Virgin Mary is the equal of Jesus Christ ; not indeed 
in the essence of her nature, but in something which she 
has never defined, and which is left to the imaginations of 
her votaries. 

The church of Rome has taken away the Holy Scrip- 
tures, and has given these pictures to the people in their 
stead. God gave the Holy Scriptures to teach the people, 
and the church of Rome has taken them away on the 
ground that the people might mistake their meaning, and 
she has given in their stead these pictures, which are still 
more liable to lead them astray. God has permitted no 
error in that Book which He has given, and the church of 
Rome was bound to see that there was no error in these 
pictures which she has substituted for them. The truth 
is, that the Holy Scriptures do not teach the doctrines 
of Rome, and therefore she has removed them, while those 
pictures do teach her unscriptural tenets and therefore she 
allows them ; the people naturally think, that what is per- 
mitted to be seen in the church is authorized by the church. 
These pictures come before them with all the apparent 



258 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



sanction of the church, and no one can be surprised that 
seeing them, they regard Mary as equal with Jesus Christ. 

I have sometimes called the attention of my Roman 
Catholic friends, to the practice in the church of Rome of 
taking those passages of Holy Scripture which are appli- 
cable only to Jesus Christ, and applying them to Mary, 
and even going so far as to apply to her the distinctive 
titles that belong to Him. In the devotional books of 
that church, even in her authorized litanies, as the litany 
of the Virgin, the very titles that in, Holy Scripture are 
applied to Jesus Christ are addressed to her. If in Holy 
Scripture He is styled " the Advocate with the Father," 
in those books she is addressed as " Our Advocate." 
If in Holy Scripture, He is called " the one mediator," 
in these books she is called "our mediator, or media- 
trix." If in Holy Scripture, He is described as " the 
door," or gate, in these books she is designated as "the 
gate." If in Holy Scripture, He is described as the "re- 
fuge for sinners," in these books she is likewise declared 
to be the refuge of sinners. If in the word of God, He is 
called " the Father of mercies," she is styled in these books 
"the Mother of mercy." If in Holy Scriptures He is 
" our Saviour," in these books she is also designated our 
Saviour. If He is styled in Scripture, " the Good Shep- 
herd," she is called " the divine shepherdess." If He is 
"our Lord," she is "our Lady," and if He is the " King 
of Heaven," she is proclaimed the " Queen of Heaven." 
She is thus, as far as the language of Holy Scripture goes, 
placed on an equality with Him ; and although they profess 
not to mean or intend this, yet it is enough that they do 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



259 



it ; and that every one who reads their devotional books, 
may see it, and read it for themselves. 

And not only this ; they have gone farther, for in the 
well-known Psalter of Saint Bonaventura, a portion of 
which was republished with authority in Rome in 1844, 
every prayer, every blessing, every thanksgiving that the 
sacred Psalmist addressed to God, is altered and adapted 
to the Virgin Mary, as being to be ascribed to her, and 
prayed of her. The title, " God," is omitted, and " Mary " 
substituted for it. The title " Lord " is removed, and 
"Lady," inserted in its stead. The awful character of this 
blasphemy and sacrilege can only be understood by ex- 
amples. Even the Lord's prayer is altered and addressed 
to her, Our Lady who art in heaven, hallowed be thy 
name, &c." and the Te Deum is changed and addressed to 
her, " We praise thee, O Mary, we acknowledge thee to be 
the Lady, &c." 

And now, as to elevating Mary above Christ. 

These devotional books proceed further. If they some- 
times elevate Mary to be the equal with Christ, they 
also sometimes elevate her beyond and above him in all 
the attributes of mercy and love. I have myself been 
witness to this, for in my conversations with the priests at 
Rome, they repeatedly asserted that as Christ was the 
Judge who must deal justice, and as Mary was the "Mother 
of Mercy" who could exercise pity and love, so it was 
better for us to pray through her than through Christ ; — 
that His nature and characteristic was justice and not 
mercy, and that her's was mercy and not justice — and that 
God heard those prayers sooner which were offered through 



260 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



her, than those that were offered through him. This belief 
is prevalent now universally in the south of Europe. 

The following" passage from " The glories of Mary " 
will illustrate this in their own words, c 4. sec. 1. 

"In order to increase our confidence in Mary, Saint 
Anselm assures us that our prayers will often be more 
speedily heard in invoking her name, than in calling on that 
of Jesus Christ ; and the reason he assigns is, that Jesus 
being no less our Judge than our Saviour, he must avenge 
the wrongs we do him by our sins. While the Holy Virgin 
being solely our advocate, is obliged to entertain only sen- 
timents of pity for us. We are far from insinuating, never- 
the less that she is more powerful than her Son ; Jesus Christ 
is our only Mediator, He alone has obtained our reconcilia- 
tion with God the Father ; but as in rendering to Him, 
whom we must necessarily consider a judge who will punish 
the ungrateful, it is probable a sentiment of fear may lessen 
the confidence necessary for being heard, it would seem 
that in applying to Mary, whose office is that of mercy, 
our hope would be so strong as to obtain all we ask for. 
How is it, that whereas we ask many things of God without 
obtaining them, we no sooner ask through Mary than they are 
granted us ? " 

This assuredly is strong language, and as strange as it is 
strong. It plainly teaches, that prayers presented through 
Mary are more readily heard than prayers presented through 
Jesus Christ. It is practically dashing the Mediatorial 
crown from the brow of Jesus, and hurling Him from the 
Mediatorial throne ; and as a greater blasphemy could not 
be uttered, so a greater sacrilege could not be committed 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



261 



by man or devil. But it does not stand alone. Let the 
following- speak for itself. 

" We read in the chronicles of St. Francis, that brother 
Leo once saw in a vision, two ladders, one red, on the 
summit of which was Jesus Christ, and the other white, 
at the top of which presided his blessed Mother. He ob- 
served that many, who endeavoured to ascend the first 
ladder, after mounting a few steps, fell down. And on 
trying again were equally unsuccessful, so that they never 
attained the summit. But a voice having told them to make 
trial of the white ladder, they soon gained the top, the blessed 
Virgin having held forth her hands to help them." c. 8. s. 3. 

These are the words of Saint Alphonso, in whose writ- 
ings it is asserted that there are no errors. And these 
words are from that very book of which a new edition has 
been published, with the authority and recommendation of 
Cardinal Wiseman. And yet these words plainly teach 
that those who seek to enter heaven by Jesus Christ f< never 
attain the summit," while those who approach by the Vir- 
gin Mary " soon reach " their place of glory ! 

It is plainly implied by the former extract, that Mary is 
more accessible, more pitiful, more merciful than Jesus 
Christ ; at least that He is a Judge to avenge, and she is 
an advocate to compassionate — that He is all justice, and 
she is all mercy — and that our prayers when offered through 
her are more easily and quickly answered than when offered 
through him. This certainly is placing Mary above Christ, 
in that which is the gem of the royal diadem, mercy and 
compassion. In the second extract this is carried out to 
its natural sequence. Those that approach heaven by Christ 
fail. Those that approach by Mary succeed. And this at 



262 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



least is placing her above him, in the matter of our salva- 
tion. The ladder or way red with his blood has failed ; 
while that which is white with her virginity is found to 
succeed. Christ is described as giving no help. Mary is 
pictured as putting forth her hand and saving ! 

Such language frightens one. To say that it was super- 
stition, or idolatry, or blasphemy, or heresy, is only to 
give it a hard and bad name. And I have never known 
good effected by hard and bad names. But language such 
as this makes the heart beat. It frightens one. 

Nor must it be supposed that this language is antiquated 
or foreign. I had myself heard it from the lips of living 
divines from the church of Rome, during my residence in 
that city. It was there stated to me, that " Christ him- 
self was not so willing to hear our prayers, and did not 
hear them so quickly when offered simply to himself, as 
when they were offered through the Blessed Virgin." 

A Roman Catholic periodical in England — the Rambler, 
in reviewing this statement, has the following startling 
passage : — 

" In one sense, the blessed Virgin Mary is more sure to 
hear our prayers than our Blessed Lord. It is the privilege 
of Mary to share the loving-kindness of her Son towards 
sinners, and not to execute his wrath upon them. And 
therefore she is all mercy, while He is both mercy and justice. 
Her mercy, indeed, is but the mercy of a creature, while 
His is that of the omnipotent God. Her love is that of 
an Intercessor, His the love of a Redeemer. But never- 
theless, the only office she is commissioned to fulfil towards 
us is one of pity, and thus in one sense a sinner's prayers 
are more sure to be heard by her than by her Son." 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



263 



And thus He, who left the heavens in loving-compassion 
for us, — who walked our fallen world in melting pity for 
us, — who bled, and died, and suffered in an unquenchable 
love for us,- — who even now intercedes in the heavens in 
sympathy for us — is described as not compassionating us, 
not pitying us, not loving us, not sympathizing with us, so 
much as Mary ! The Creator must thus veil and retire 
before the creature ! How strangely significant were the 
words addressed by an apostle to the church of Rome, 
" They worshipped and served the creature more than the 
Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." — Rom. i. 25. 

As this charge is the most awful that can be adduced 
against a professing church, it is no more than common 
justice, that their reply should be heard. That reply is 
different, according to the different class of religionists of 
Rome, to whom the argument is addressed. 

Those members of the church of Rome, who are the 
devotional, pious, religious, and generally those of Italy 
and Spain, avow all this language towards Mary, and defend 
it as admissible. They have no desire either to change or to 
soften it. They are so unacquainted with the Scriptures — so 
utterly ignorant of scriptural Christianity that they do not 
see anything wrong or objectionable in all this elevation of 
Mary ; on the other hand, they regard it as right and fitting. 
It falls in with all their religious systems, they are endea- 
vouring to elevate the worship of Mary more and more 
every day, and they anticipate, so to speak, her perfect and 
supreme elevation. A Roman Lady, one day said in my 
presence, " that the hope of spreading true morality in 
Italy was most promising, because the religion of the 
most holy Mary was so much extending." And one of 



264 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



the priests of that city stated to myself, that " the religion 
of Christ " was every day becoming more and more the 
<c religion of Mary," and he spoke this as approving of the 
change — the transition is gradual but certain. In order, 
therefore, to raise her from the inferior or veiled position 
which she has hitherto held in the ideal of Christianity, 
they have no hesitation in having recourse to every extra- 
vagance of language and of worship, so as to elevate her 
on high, and so to speak, to unveil her before the eyes of 
her votaries. When therefore, this devout, pious, and re- 
ligious class of Romanists, hears these passages of their 
devotional books read as objectionable, they at once adopt 
them and justify them ; they are as much surprised at our 
rejecting them, as we are at their receiving them. 

There is another class however iu the church of Rome, 
who look on all this as the extravagance of the devout and 
superstitious. They always profess to dislike such language, 
as calculated to impair the character of the church of Rome 
in the eyes of Protestants, and that for that cause they 
profess to regret and deplore it. They think it may do 
very well for the ignorant masses, and therefore they are 
unwilling to speak against it ; and they argue, with some 
shew of justice and reason, when they say that it is not 
fair to judge the church of Rome by these books. 

The answer which I have given to this, has generally 
silenced these persons. I have reminded them that there 
is one book — a book unspeakably valued and cherished 
among us as the Book of books, — the holy Scriptures, 
which, though divinely-inspired, and therefore containing 
no error whatever, the church of Rome has prohibited, on 
the avowed ground that its language is liable to be mis- 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



265 



taken by the simple and ignorant. The church of Rome, 
in the decree of the congregation of the Index, has prohibi- 
ted the perusal of this book by the laity, unless where the 
bishop gives licence, as thinking it may be read without dan- 
ger — has prohibited its being sold by any bookseller unless 
with permission from the bishop — and has prohibited its being 
read even by the regular clergy, i.e. by the monastic orders, 
unless under a like permission.* I have said, that it was 
a fact — a broad and great fact, that the church of Rome 
professed to prohibit such books as were likely to injure the 
faith of her people, and so to prohibit the holy scriptures 
on the ground that they were liable to be mistaken by the 
simple and ignorant. Now, I ask — why she has not pro- 
hibited these devotional books if she thinks them liable to 
be mistaken by the simple and ignorant ? And why do 
not you, I have said to the priests, — why do not you, who 
are so active in suppressing the reading of the Holy Scrip- 
tures on the ground of their liability to being mistaken 
— why do not you use the same activity in suppressing 
these devotional books, if indeed you disapprove of them, 
or think them liable to be mistaken ? And does not your 
zeal against the Holy Scriptures, seem to imply that the 
people may learn more evil from them, than from these 
books, which you say you disapprove of ? And as to their 
being authorized or not by the church ; it should be remem- 
bered that they are often published with authority in Rome 
herself, and that too in a place where the press is so scru- 
pulously watched, that no man could publish or sell the 
Holy Scriptures. Why do they not at Rome, or elsewhere, 

* These several provisions are contained in the decree of the Index 
concerning the Holy Scriptures. 

N 



266 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



prohibit the publication of these books, as well as of the Holy 
Scriptures ? The fact that they prohibit the publication of 
the Holy Scriptures, and the fact that they authorize the 
publication of these books, must stand as proof that they 
approve of these more than of the Holy Scriptures. 

And now the question comes — What saith the Scripture ? 

The contrast is striking indeed. The devotional books 
of the church of Rome are full, even to overflowing, of the 
religion of Mary. The Holy Scriptures contain nothing of 
it, but only the religion of Christ. 

The Holy Scriptures " given by inspiration of God," and 
" able to make us wise unto salvation through faith," say 
nothing whatever respecting her birth, as little as possible 
concerning her life, and not one word about her death. 
This silence is significant. 

But the church of Rome, instead of imitating the divine 
silence, has supplied material in abundance ; she professes 
to tell us all about the marriage of her parents — her own 
miraculous birth — the incidents of her childhood — her in- 
tercourse with Joseph — her betrothal and marriage — her 
conversations with the kings of the east — her after life — her 
death, burial, and assumption into heaven — her coronation 
as queen of heaven, of angels and of saints ! An inventive 
genius has not been wanting. 

There is in all that concerns Mary, a strange contrast 
indeed between the Holy Scriptures, and the writings of 
the church of Rome. 

It is not the least remarkable fact of the gospel history, 
that it does not give a single instance of our Lord's having 
addressed Mary as his mother. The gospels omit all men- 
tion of his childhood, except that he was subject to his 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



267 



parents, and of course that they directed him as his parents, 
and that he obeyed them as their child. But in all his 
ministerial life— from the moment of his manifesting his 
Messiahship — from the baptism in the Jordan, he never 
once addresses Mary as his mother. He seems never to 
have recognized her as such. 

There are only three instances in the Holy Scriptures 
where our Lord is described as speaking to Mary. 

I. The first occurred in his childhood. He left his pa- 
rents, and they knew not where he was. They found him 
among the doctors in the temple. The gospel narrates, Luke 
ii. 48 — 51, that "when they saw him, they were amazed, 
and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus 
dealt with us ? behold thy father and I have sought thee 
sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye 
sought me ? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's 
business ? And they understood not the saying which he 
spake unto them. And he went down with them, and be- 
came subject unto them : but his mother kept all these 
sayings in her heart." This incident occurred in his child- 
hood, and these his first words detailed as addressed to 
Mary, certainly do not justify any very extravagant devo- 
tional language towards her on our part. 

II. The next occasion was after he had commenced his 
public teaching. The gospel narrates, John ii. 3, 4. " When 
they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, 
they have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what 
have I to do with thee ? mine hour is not yet come." He 
here addresses her not as his "mother," but simply as 
"woman," a term not of contempt or of slight, but the 
term of respect or courtesy ordinarily applied to females. 

N 2 



268 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



He thus addresses her with no peculiar deference, but only 
with the same language in which he would have addressed 
any other woman present. And when he adds <e What 
have I to do with thee ? " or as the Roman Catholics trans- 
late it, " What is to me, and to thee -? " the words seem to 
convey some gentle reproof for her interference, implying 
that he could not recognize anything in common between 
them — any relation which could justify her interfering ; and 
that though she might think the time was come for his in- 
tended miracle, he preferred waiting longer, "My time" 
he said, "is not yet come." 

III. The last instance of his addressing Mary was on 
the cross. He could then see her natural sorrows — the 
sorrows of a mother beside her dying son. One might 
suppose it the occasion of drawing from him language 
of touching endearment and tenderness, — but no. He knew 
what was in man, and knew that any endearing or tender 
words towards her might and would be perverted into 
words to justify the worship of a woman. He therefore 
would not even call her His mother ; He addressed her 
only as he would have addressed any other female, "Wo- 
man." And He commits her, now widowed, childless, 
destitute, to the care of his loved disciple John ; and de- 
sires her to regard John in future as her son, and desires 
John to protect her as his mother in future. "Woman," 
said He, " behold thy Son ! " and addressing John — " Be- 
hold thy mother ! " And in obedience to this dying wish 
the beloved disciple " took her unto his own home." John 
was to be a son to Mary, and Mary was to be a mother to 
John. 

In these, which are the only instances in which our Lord 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



269 



is described as having spoken to Mary, there certainly is 
nothing to warrant the high, extreme, extravagant lan- 
guage of devotion which characterizes the devotional books 
of the church of Rome. On the other hand, the fact — 
the simple fact — that in all the gospel history these are the 
only instances recorded ; — the simple fact that there is a 
settled, formal, deliberate silence on the subject, is calcu- 
lated to convey the feeling that the Holy Ghost designed 
to cut away all excuse or occasion or ground for such lan- 
guage of devotion and worship, as He, who knew the 
future as well as the present, foresaw would be introduced 
into the church. 

But the holy scriptures go farther than this. Our Lord 
is described as speaking twice about his mother ; and on 
both occasions his words bear a wonderful significance. 

I. The first is in Matt. xii. 46,—" While he yet talked 
to the people, behold his mother and his brethren stood 
without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto 
him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, 
desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said 
unto him that told him, Who is my mother ? and who are my 
brethren ? And he stretched forth his hand toward his dis- 
ciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren ! For 
whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in hea- 
ven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." He 
thus heard of Mary wishing to speak with him ; He does 
not comply ; He remains as He was ; and though He had 
then the opportunity of magnifying her before the eyes of 
all, He carefully avoids it, and seems not so much as to 
recognize her as His mother. He asks — " Who is my 
mother ?" and He answers the question Himself — " Who- 



270 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



soever will do the will of my Father which is in heaven, 
the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." What- 
ever the tie or the love He owed a mother, should now be 
the tie and love which He would feel for all who do the 
will of God ; and other relationship He recognized not. 
He was now the manifested Messiah, and He knew no ties 
on earth but that common manhood which gave Him sym- 
pathy with all the people of God. 

II. The second instance in which He is narrated as 
speaking of His mother is still more remarkable. Luke xi. 
27 — " It came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain 
woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto 
him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps 
which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea, rather, blessed 
are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." Here 
is a woman, in the feeling so natural in a woman, blessing 
her who was the mother of Jesus. She blesses the womb 
that bore Him and the breasts which suckled Him. It is to 
this day the universal argument amongst the members of 
the church of Rome. And here we learn how our Lord 
regarded it. His answer is remarkable ; "Yea," was his 
confirmation cf the words of the woman. She was in- 
deed blessed w r ho had borne and suckled him ; but there 
was a greater blessedness still than this — and however 
great was the blessedness of Mary as His mother, there 
was a blessedness still greater which every Christian wo- 
man may possess ; for, " rather blessed," that is, "more 
blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." 
If, then, any woman among us would have a blessedness, 
still greater than that which Mary possessed, as his mother, 
she has only to hear the word of God and keep it. 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



271 



Truly there is a great contrast between the words of the 
Holy Scriptures and the teaching of the church of Rome. 

One only consideration remains ; it is that connected 
with what is called — most untruly called — the Angelical 
Salutation. 

A young man, a fine, open, generous fellow, who was 
very earnest and zealous for the religion of Rome, stopped 
me one day to ask me whether " the Angelical Salutation " 
was not in the Holy Scriptures ; — that a Protestant had 
denied it to him ; and he wished to hear it from myself. 

I asked him to repeat it for me. 

He did so. — " Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with 
thee. 

" Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit 
of thy womb — Jesus. 

" Holy Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of death. 
Amen." 

I then said, that it consisted of three parts. There was, 
first, the salutation of the angel : there was, next, the 
words of Elizabeth, the mother of the Baptist : and, lastly, 
there was a prayer of the church of Rome, which is not in 
the Holy Scriptures at all. 

He did not seem quite to understand me ; so 1 produced 
my little Roman Catholic translation of the New Testament, 
and shewed him the place in Luke i. 28, — " Hail, full of 
grace, the Lord is with tbee, blessed art thou among 
women." There is nothing more, I remarked, in the 
angel's salutation. 

He read it again and again ; he was inexpressibly puz- 
zled ; but he asked me, where was the rest of it ? was not 
the rest of it a part of the Angelical Salutation ? 



272 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



I replied, of course, that it was not, and shewed him 
the second part of it in Luke i. 42. It was not the angel 
— it was Elizabeth who said, " Blessed art thou among 
women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." I desired 
him to read it for himself. 

He read it, and paused, and read it again and again, and 
asked where was the remainder of it ? He seemed per- 
plexed, and, as I thought, angered and chagrined. 

I said, that the third part was, " Holy Mary, pray for 
us now and at the hour of death," and this was not spoken 
by the angel, nor by Elizabeth, and was not in the Holy 
Scriptures at all. It was the mere invention of the priests 
of Rome. And, I added, it was wickedly added to the 
angel's salutation ; — it has been wickedly taught to you 
under the name of the angel's salutation ; — it has been 
wickedly done to deceive you into the belief that the angel 
prayed to Mary, that you might be induced to think it 
could not be wrong for you to do what the angel did, 
and thus to pray to Mary to pray for you. Here is the 
Roman Catholic translation ; you can judge for yourself. 

He looked on the ground for a few moments — clasped 
his hands almost convulsively — covered his face with his 
hands — then letting them fall, he said with a voice of 
deep pathos-AO, Sir, when our clergy deceive us, poor, 
ignorant people thus, what is to become of us, and what 
are we to believe ? He spoke with intense earnestness. 

I said — God has given to you His word, the Holy Scrip- 
tures ; He has told you " they are able to make thee wise 
unto salvation through faith." He has commanded you to 
" search the Scriptures ; " read and believe them, and then 
no man shall be able to deceive you. 



THE VIRGIN MARY. 



273 



I believe you are right, was his only reply, as he left me 
very thoughtfully. 

It may here be noticed that there is nothing in the 
angel's salutation to justify either prayer or worship to the 
Virgin Mary. 

The word, "Hail" does not justify it, for it was only 
the ordinary salute of the time, and was addressed by our 
Lord himself to His disciples : He said, " All hail," when 
certainly He did not pray to them nor worship them. — 
Matt, xxviii. 9. 

The words — " The Lord be with thee," do not justify it, 
for the very same words are addressed also by the angel to 
Gideon, "The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of 
valour ;" Judges vi. 12, and certainly they do not entitle 
Gideon to any worship. 

The words — "Thou art highly favoured," or, as the Ro- 
manists translate it, " full of grace," will not justify it, for 
the same words, indeed stronger, are addressed to the 
prophet Daniel — " O man, greatly beloved," Dan. x. 19, 
and such words do not imply prayer or worship to him. 

The words — " Blessed art thou among women," as 
spoken to Mary, are no more than the words spoken of 
Jael — " Blessed shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be ; 
blessed shall she be above women in the tent ; " Judges v. 
24. Such words do not justify prayer or worship, either to 
Jael on one hand, or to the Virgin Mary on the other. 

Let us think of Mary with tender affection, as of the 
mother of Jesus ; but let us neither pray to her nor worship 
her ; for prayer and worship belong exclusively to the God- 
head. 

N 5 



THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 



THE CANONS GF TRENT ON THE PRIESTHOOD AND ON THE MASS 

OCCASION OF THIS CONVERSATION THE SACRIFICE AMONG PRO- 
TESTANTS THE FIGURATIVE APPLICATION OF THE TERM THE 

PRIESTHOOD OF JESUS CHRIST THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY NEVER 

CALLED A PRIESTHOOD IN SCRIPTURE THE ONLY PRIESTHOOD ON 

EARTH IS THAT OF ALL BELIEVERS THE SUFFICIENCY OF JESUS 

CHRIST THE TRUE MEANING OF THE TERMS PRIEST AND PRES- 
BYTER. 

There are few subjects at issue between the church of 
Rome and ourselves, upon which I have been more fre- 
quently engaged in discussion, than on the sacrifice of the 
Mass. Its own innate importance, arising out of the prin- 
ciples it involves — the great value placed upon it by its 
votaries — its being regarded as their " morning and even- 
ing sacrifice," the greatest and highest of all their rites, 
and the most efficacious, and precious, and important of 
all the mysteries of their faith, always invests its discus- 
sion with a prominence and an interest peculiarly its own. 
The most essential and characteristic elements of Roman- 
ism are all interwreathed and involved in it. And all the 
grandest truths of a Protestant Christianity are drawn out 



THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 



275 



and engaged against it. It has thus naturally become in 
my intercourse with Romanists, a constant subject of con- 
troversial as well as of amicable conversation. 

It is unhappily true, that upon this, as upon many other 
points at issue between us, there are mistakes on both sides, 
as to the real nature and character of the sacrifice of the 
Mass. Hence I have always felt it desirable when entering 
on this discussion, to obviate all mistakes and misapprehen- 
sions by letting the church of Rome speak for herself 
in her four canons upon the subject. 

The Canons of the Council of Trent are as follows : — 

" If any man shall say, that a true and proper sacrifice 
is not offered to God in the Mass, or that that which is 
offered, is only Christ offered to us to be eaten by us — let 
him be anathema." — Canon I. 

* If any man shall say, that Christ did not constitute 
the apostles sacrificers (sacerdotes) by the words, •'* Do 
this in remembrance of Me ' — or that He did not ordain 
them, that they and other sacrificers (sacerdotes) might offer 
His body and blood — let him be anathema." — Canon II. 

" If any man shall say, that the sacrifice of the Mass is 
only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a 
mere commemoration of the sacrifice done on the cross, 
and that it is not a propitiatory sacrifice, or that it is profit- 
able only to the person who receives it, and that it ought 
not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, 
punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities — let him 
be anathema." — Canon III. 

" If any man shall say, that by the sacrifice of the Mass 
there is blasphemy done to the most holy sacrifice of Christ 
offered on the cross, or that there is any dishonour done 



276 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



to Him in the sacrifice of the Mass — let him be anathema.'' 
— Canon IV. 

In the following conversation, the subject was principally 
that involved in the second of these Canons ; namely, the 
priesthood. The other canons embody the subject-matter 
of a subsequent conversation. 

While in conversation with a few Roman Catholics one 
day — the topic at the time being so non-theological a sub- 
ject as the price of potatoes, and the best means of coun- 
teracting the schemes of some farmers and speculators who 
were combining to secure a high price for their stock, — a 
combination often made to the disadvantage and injury of 
the poor — the Roman Catholic priest of the parish, ap- 
proached, accompanied by a number of his flock. He 
seemed excited, he held a stout hunting-whip in one hand 
and a small book in the other. The manner of his approach 
prepared me immediately for an encounter of a hostile kind, 
though I was much perplexed as to the cause ; and I would 
gladly have retired, only that I apprehended my doing so 
might be misconstrued. Hence I awaited his coming. 

He waved his right hand in which he held his whip, and 
thus soon cleared an open space, keeping the people from 
pressing on him, and enabling all to see both him and my- 
self. It seemed at the moment as if he was elate and con- 
fident — as if he felt he had some means of perfect triumph 
over me, and wished that all should be witnesses of his 
success. In his left hand he held open a volume which 
proved to be, not as I thought a missal, but the book of 
Common Prayer, and he held this towards me, pushing it 
almost into my very face. 

Now, he exclaimed, here is your own Book — your own 



THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 



277 



Protestant Prayer Book. You stated to some of my flock, — 
and here are some of them that heard you say it, — that the 
holy sacrifice of the Mass was not a sacrifice at all — that 
there was no such thing as a sacrifice in the Catholic church 
—that there is no such office as that of a priest in the church 
of the Holy Jesus, blessed be his holy name — and that thus 
there is neither priest nor sacrifice in the holy Catholic 
church. Now to confute you, here is your own Protestant 
Prayer Book, where the service of your own Mass — I 
mean, he said, on observing a smile among the people, 
your own communion -service as you call it, is expressly 
called a sacrifice. The very words are " this sacrifice of 
praise and thanksgiving ; " I will read them, he added, in a 
tone of triumph, ,c O Lord and heavenly Father, we thy 
humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly goodness, mer- 
cifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiv- 
ing." There, he exclaimed in conscious triumph, they 
acknowledge it in their own Protestant Church, and deny 
it in the Catholic church ! 

Every eye was now turned on me for an answer, and yet 
I felt that this was not the place, nor was my opponent in the 
state of mind and tone of feeling suited to a discussion on 
religion. So I told him that we were just then talking 
about the high price of potatoes, and speaking of the best 
way of counteracting the combination of the farmers and 
speculators. And, I added, in the most kindly way, that if 
he would help us in this matter, I would gladly talk with 
him on the other matter on some future occasion. 

My proposal only made matters worse. He replied, that 
he would have nothing to do with me about potatoes or 
anything else, until I answered him about the Mass ; — that 



278 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



I had said the Mass was not a sacrifice, and that there was 
no sacrifice in the church, when in the Protestant Prayer- 
book itself the communion was expressly called a sacrifice. 

I saw he would have his way, and I saw likewise, that 
the people, who take an intense interest and pleasure in a 
controversial rencounter, quite as much as in any other 
species of fighting, wished me to reply. 

I said, that on the occasion alluded to I had stated that 
there was a sacrifice in the church of Christ ; — that there 
was one, and only one, true propitiatory sacrifice that could 
take away sin or make atonement for sin — that that was 
the bleeding sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross of Cal- 
vary, " the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the 
world;" — that that was the one sacrifice required by all 
the Protestant churches ; and that we could recognize no 
other as a true, propitiatory, or atoning sacrifice. We feel 
and know, — I added, with all the gentle courtesy I could 
shew, and with all the kind and earnest feelings I enter- 
tained, — and one of your education and information knows, 
that in a large and figurative sense, every act of prayer, or 
of praise, or of charity, or of love is a spiritual sacrifice. 
The Holy Scriptures describe prayer as if it were " in- 
cense," and the lifting up of our hands in prayer and 
devotion as "an evening sacrifice." The Holy Scriptures 
describe the doing good to others, even with our worldly 
substance as " a sacrifice with which God is well pleased." 
The Holy Scriptures describe the devotion of ourselves to 
him as " a living sacrifice " which is acceptable to God. 
The Holy Scriptures describe the Christian as offering 
"spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God, through Jesus 
Christ." All these earnest and devotional acts of the 



THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 



279 



Christian life are " spiritual sacrifices." And therefore, we 
call our communion in the Lord's Supper with prayer and 
praise and thanksgiving " a sacrifice of praise and thanks- 
giving." This is simply the meaning of the words in the 
Prayer-book ; and therefore, what I said a few evenings 
since, was, that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was the only 
true, atoning sacrifice in the church ; and that excepting 
this, there was not a true or propitiatory sacrifice in any 
church. And that, therefore, the Mass of the church of 
Rome was not a true and propitiatory sacrifice for sin as 
described in her creed — "I profess that in the Mass there is 
offered to God a true, proper, propitiatory sacrifice for the 
living and the dead." I appealed to our hearers as to 
whether this was not the purport of all I had stated ; and 
then I suggested that we should leave the subject for the 
present, and rather try something on which we were more 
likely to agree, instead of one on which we were sure to 
differ ; suggesting that as I had answered his question, 
1 hoped he would now consult with us about the combina- 
tion to raise the price of potatoes on the poor. 

My appeal was useless. He looked at me with an ap- 
pearance of conscious triumph, and added, in a tone which 
there was no mistaking — that not contented with saying to 
his flock that the holy Mass was not a sacrifice, I had also 
blasphemed the Catholic clergy, and said that he was no 
priest— that he, aye, that he was not a priest — for that 
there was no priest at all in the church except Jesus Christ. 
He looked at me for a reply. 

I answered very slowly, but very impressively, that who- 
ever had so reported me had in one particular, reported me 
truly. The Lord Jesus Christ is the High Priest of the 



280 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



church. Any and every Christian, may, in a figurative 
way, or in the spiritual sense, be called a priest, and is 
so called in Scripture ; but as for a real, true priest, in the 
sense of a man to offer a true and atoning sacrifice for sin, 
in this sense, in which it is used among you, — neither 
in the church of Rome, nor in the church of England, nor 
in the church of Scotland, nor in any Roman or Greek or 
Protestant church is there a priest but the Lord Jesus 
Christ himself. 

If I had spoken a thunderbolt or breathed a lightning 
■flash, he could not have been more excited. He exclaimed, 
that it was horrible blasphemy, and enough to drive a 
whole nation of Catholics, like Ireland, into rebellion and 
revolution ! And without another word, he rushed from the 
midst of us, and walked away as rapidly as possible. 

His sudden retreat had its natural effect on so peculiar 
and so excitable a people as our hearers. They were both 
disappointed and angered. I immediately expressed my 
regret, not indeed at his departure, but at his interruption 
of our previous consultation ; — told them that I would say 
no more at that moment on the subject of the priesthood, 
but that I would speak of it again at our cottage lecture 
in the evening ; — and so we resumed our consultation as to 
the best means of keeping down the price of potatoes. 

In the evening there was a large attendance of Roman 
Catholics mingled with the Protestants at the cottage 
where I was to deliver my lecture. I had expected this 
from the little affair of the morning. 

After our usual prayer and reading of a chapter from the 
Holy Scriptures, which on this occasion was the eighth of 
Hebrews, I proceeded, in my usual way, to explain the 



THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 281 



chapter generally in plain and simple language, and to 
make it as subsidiary as possible to the promotion of holi- 
ness of thought and feeling and life. I then dwelt more 
particularly on the priesthood of the Lord, as set forth in 
the opening verses. I laid it down, that in heaven and 
earth there was but one true, propitiatory, atoning sacrifice 
— Jesus Christ on the cross ; and but one true and sacrifi- 
cing priest to offer it — Jesus Christ in the heavens. I also 
laid it down broadly, that in " the church militant here on 
earth " there was no priesthood whatever, except that 
spiritual priesthood which belongs to every Christian and 
believing man, woman and child ; — that there was no 
especial priesthood in any special or select body of men 
apart from the whole number of " the faithful and elect 
people of God ; " — that there was no priestly caste, no 
sacerdotal caste, possessed of any peculiar or exclusive 
priesthood ; that the Lord Jesus Christ was the only true 
sacrificing Priest, as He was also the only true, atoning 
sacrifice for sin ; and that all His believing people were, in 
the words of St. Peter, " a holy priesthood," and, in the 
language of St. Paul, " a living sacrifice." I went on to 
illustrate my position that our Lord Jesus Christ was the 
great High Priest of the church, and the only one so de- 
signated in the Holy Scriptures. I illustrated this by verse 
1 of the chapter before us, the eighth ; wherein I read — 
" Wherefore in all things it behoveth him to be made like 
unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful 
high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconcilia- 
tion for the sins of the people." — -Heb. ii. 17. " Wherefore, 
holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider 
the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ 



282 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Jesus." Heb. iii. 1 . And again — " Seeing then that we 
have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, 
Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For 
we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with 
the feeling of our infirmities ; but was in all points tempted 
like as we are, yet without sin." — Heb. iv. 14. And again 
■ — " Now of the things which we have spoken this is the 
sum : We have such an high priest, who is set on the right 
hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens." — Heb. 
viii. L I said that these passages might be easily multi- 
plied to shew Jesus Christ to be the one priest of His peo- 
ple. And then, as was my habit, I asked whether there 
was any one who desired to ask any question for further 
information. 

One of our hearers in the little affair of the morning, 
a zealous member of the church of Rome, here remarked, 
that it had been made very plain, and no one could con- 
tradict it, by the Scriptures which had been read, that the 
Blessed Lord Jesus was the High Priest of the church — 
that that was true catholic doctrine, and the doctrine of the 
Catholic church — that therefore neither he nor any catholic 
could speak against it ; but, he added shrewdly, that the 
fact of the Lord being the High Priest, did not hinder, 
but that there might be other priests. For example, he 
said, his holiness the pope is a bishop, but that does not 
prevent there being other bishops besides, under him ; and 
so, though the Blessed Jesus be our great High Priest, it 
does not hinder, but that his clergy of his church may be 
priests also under him. 

I saw that the point was well understood, and well 
received by many of his co-religionists present, and there- 



THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 



283 



fore I immediately thanked him for putting the question 
and especially for the manner in which he put it, adding, 
that this was the true way of eliciting truth — that we all, 
whether Protestants or Romanists, were seeking the truth 
for the salvation of our souls, and were bound alike to 
search for it, and when found, to embrace it at every haz- 
zard. This sentiment was warmly responded to. 

I then proceeded to answer him, by saying, that in 
the whole of the gospels and epistles, indeed in the whole 
New Testament, there is not a single instance — not one 
solitary instance — in which the ministers and clergy of the 
church are designated as priests, or have that term applied 
to them, which is usually translated priests, and which 
means a priest who offers sacrifice — a sacrificing priest. 
They are variously called ministers, and stewards, and pas- 
tors, and teachers, and deacons, and presbyters, and bishops, 
but in no instance whatever, are they designated as priests. 
This, I said, was a great fact on the face of holy Scripture. 
I then read — " Now ye are the body of Christ, and mem- 
bers in particular. And God hath set some in the church, 
first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after 
that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, 
diversities of tongues." — 1 Cor. xii. 27, 28. In all this, 
there is no mention of a priest or a priesthood. I then 
read — " And he gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; 
and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers ; for 
the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, 
for the edifying of the body of Christ."— Eph. iv. 11, 12. 
There is no mention of a priest or priesthood in all this. 
I then read 1 Cor. iv. 1, then 1 Tim. iii. 1, then iii. 8, 
then Titus i. 5. I then remarked, that although they 



284 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



seem specially designed to describe the various offices in 
the Christian ministry there is no mention of that of priest, 
or of a priesthood — that this was a great fact on the face 
of Holy Scripture; and that these things being so, the 
name of priest or priesthood, ought not to be applied to 
the ministry of the church. I then added that we felt that 
having such an High Priest, all-willing to mediate— all- 
powerful to intercede — all-sufficient for our necessities, we 
stand in need of no other priest, we want no other, and to 
teach that we want another, is a practical impeachment of 
the sufficiency of Jesus Christ. 

The effect of this was considerable, especially as most 
of those present examined each text and handed the Bible 
from one to another, that all might see for themselves ; 
and it was observed that there was no material difference 
between the Protestant and the Roman Catholic transla- 
tions. There are few statements which have generally a 
stronger or more startling effect upon Roman Catholics. 
They seem to feel that the claim of a sacrificing priesthood 
is the very life-blood of their system. And that if we de- 
prive them of this, it is like letting out their life itself ; 
and yet there is nothing more evident than that in Holy 
Scripture there is no warrant whatever for such a claim. 
There is a presbytery. There is not a priesthood.* 

It was after some delay, that the person, who had pro- 
posed the previous question, and to whom all his co-reli- 
gionists looked for an answer to my statement, said that 
he thought there were places in the Scriptures, where the 
clergy were called priests, and their holy office called a 
priesthood. He held his Bible open and read 1 Peter ii. 5. 
* See note at the end of this conversation. 



THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 285 



He then remarked that the clergy were there called "a 
holy priesthood," and then read verse 9, observing that 
there they were called "a royal priesthood," and then 
adding that in the Book of Revelations the clergy are 
called kings and priests." He said with much modesty, 
that he was not much of a scholar, but that he had read 
that in all these places, the original word was exactly the 
one that meant a sacrificing priesthood, and that this was 
the doctrine of the catholic church — that Jesus Christ was 
the High Priest, and that the clergy were the inferior priests. 

" You are wrong there," exclaimed one of his own 
friends, " for it is His holiness the Pope, the successor of 
the Blessed St. Peter, is the High Priest, as you said just 
now ; the clergy are his inferior priests." 

This coming from a Romanist, caused no small sensation, 
which interrupted us for a few moments. It had the effect 
of drawing out a few more remarks and bringing into a 
strong light, something like the foreground of a picture, 
the difficulty of the Romanist explaining the high priest- 
hood of the Jews. The apostle plainly refers it to Christ. 
The church of Rome as plainly refers it to the pope. 

After this interruption had passed away, I said, that it 
was necessary I should reply to what he had stated when 
he cited the two places from St. Peter and the third from 
the Revelation. I said the reply was sufficiently obvious, 
— that the title of priesthood and priest was given to all 
the believers, all the members of the church, — not to the 
clergy alone but to the laity also, — not to any one sacer- 
dotal caste of men, but to the whole body of the peo- 
ple of God ; to the men and to the women, to the old and 
to the young, — to all the faithful alike. This, I went on to 



286 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



say, was apparent from the inscriptions of the Epistle. It 
is addressed, not to the clergy alone, but "to the stran- 
gers, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, 
Asia, and Bithynia." It is thus addressed to them who 
were redeemed by Jesus Christ, verse 18, — to them who 
were born again of the Spirit of God, and had purified their 
souls in obeying the truth, verse 22 — to them who coming 
as living stones were built up into a Temple unto God, and 
so built up on Jesus Christ as the true rock of their foun- 
dation, ii. 5. The Epistle is addressed to all such, whether 
clergy or people. And, I continued, among these were 
both men and women, both husbands and wives, and that 
this was apparent from the third chapter, where both men 
and women are expressly mentioned, and again from the 
fifth chapter, where both clergy and people are mentioned. 
To these, I added — to all these alike, as the faithful people 
of God, the appellation of a holy priesthood, and " a royal 
priesthood," belonged. They were all alike, and I read the 
verse as Isaid it — they were all alike addressed by St. Peter, 
as a spiritual house, a chosen people, a holy nation, a pecu- 
liar people, and a royal priesthood. It is in the same sense 
it is used in the Book of Revelation. In Christianity there 
is no sacerdotal class — no priestly caste. The " holy priest- 
hood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God, 
by Jesus Christ," is the office and inheritance of every be- 
liever alike, of men and women alike ; it belongs to no class 
and no caste ; and the humblest peasant man, and the low- 
liest peasant woman, if only they are the faithful children of 
Jesus Christ, are as much members of this priesthood, as 
the archbishop of Canterbury, or the bishop of Rome. 
Some minutes were here given by all present to the care- 



THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD. 



287 



ful examination of the places cited in this first Epistle of 
Peter. There was much comparing of translations, and 
much conversation on each point. The result was very 
satisfactory, as showing that several were convinced I had 
given the true interpretation of the Scriptures. 

I said to them in conclusion, that they ought to keep in 
mind, that there can be no sacrifice if there be no priest ; 
and that therefore, there can be no true sacrifice in the 
Mass, as there is no true priest to sacrifice it. I added 
that on the next evening, I would open that part of the 
subject. I then endeavoured to improve the subject to all 
present, by enlarging on the comforts of having such a High 
Priest as Christ, to whom we could come in every time of 
need, — to confess to Him our sins, to receive of Him for- 
giveness, and to ask of Him the grace to keep us in the 
future. 

I then dwelt on his sympathy for us in all our wants, 
necessities, sorrows, and temptations. I called their at- 
tention particularly to the latter part of the fourth chapter 
of this epistle to the Hebrews, where it is said that all 
within us, all our inner nature was known to him — that he 
as God knew all that was in us, our infirmities, sorrows, 
trials and temptations — that he, as man, had so to speak, a 
personal and experimental acquaintance with all that we 
require, and that thus he was a High Priest who could have 
compassion on our infirmities, and pity those who were 
astray, and sympathize with those that were under trial ; 
and finally that with such a High Priest, we may come with 
confidence, with all the loving confidence of loving children, 
to our Heavenly Father, Saviour and God, and we shall 
ever find grace and mercy in our time of need, '* He is 
able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God 



288 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 
For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, 
undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the 
heavens ; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to 
offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the 
people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." 
— Hebrews vii. 25 — 27. 

I have always found that the hearts of the people were 
touched by simple and clear statements as to the love of 
God, the work of Christ, and generally as to the great 
truths of the Gospel. Often after the heat of the contro- 
versy has passed away, these truths come like balm upon 
the heart, and many a fierce eye is moistened by the big 
tear, and many a bold face is shaded by the hand, and 
many a high head is seen to hang down, and feelings are 
touched and hearts are warmed, and the rough hand is 
outstretched with words of honest thankfulness. It cer- 
tainly was so on the present occasion. 

Note. — [The Holy Scriptures frequently speak of " The Priests and 
Elders " of the Jews. The original words would have been more suit- 
ably translated — " The Sacrificers and Presbyters " of the Jews. The 
former, that is, the Priests or Sacrificers, ceased with the Jewish dispen- 
sation. Their Priesthood and Sacrifices were typical, and passed away 
when Jesus Christ, the true Priest and Sacrificer, was come ; and exer- 
cised the office and made the atonement. The latter, that is, the Elders 
or Presbyters, were continued, or more correctly speaking, their name 
was continued in the Christian dispensation, and applied to the Christian 
Ministry. 

It is this word " Presbyter,'" contracted into " Prester," and then into 
" Priest," that is applied so often by us to our ministers. It is not in the 
sense of trjpeus, a Sacrificer, the word applied to the Jewish Priests ; but 
in the sense of Tlpeafivrepos, a Presbyter, that we so apply it. The 
Romanists use it in the former sense, claiming to be Sacrificers. The 
Protestants use it in the latter, claiming only to be Presbyters.] 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 



THE LOVE Of CONTROVERSY AMONG THE IRISH PEASANTRY CURI- 
OUS ILLUSTRATION THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST AS THE ONLY 

ATONEMENT IN CONSISTENT WITH THE DOCTRINE OF THE MASS 

THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS SAID TO BE IDENTICAL WITH THAT 
OF CHRIST UPON THE CROSS SAID TO BE A REPETITION OR CON- 
TINUATION OF IT THIS EXAMINED OR COMPARED WITH SCRIP- 
TURE SUCH A CHARACTER DEPRIVES IT OF ALL ITS SUPPOSED 

EFFICACY ARGUMENT AS TO THE SUFFERINGS ENTAILED UPON 

CHRIST THUS INVOLVED IN THE MASS SEVERAL CONTRADIC- 
TIONS NECESSARILY INVOLVED IN THIS DOCTRINE PASSAGES OF 

SCRIPTURE EXAMINED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SUBJECT. 

There is a love of religious discussion, or as some may call 
it, a love of controversy, very remarkable among the Irish 
peasantry. They will go any distance, — undergo any 
fatigue, — bear any inconvenience, if only they can hear a 
discussion on the points at issue between the Protestant and 
Romish churches ; and whenever this is expected between 
persons supposed to be competent, there never will be 
wanted an ample assemblage of hearers. To such an ex- 
tent does this feeling prevail, that a sermon or a lecture on 
any points at issue, is sure to find a large number of eager, 
and attentive, and intelligent listeners. 

That much of this peculiar disposition belongs to the race 




290 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



is very probable. It seems like their restlessness and pug- 
nacity, a sort of national characteristic. It is very certain 
that these discussions are attended by a class of persons, 
thoughtless, giddy, heady, irreligious, who can hardly be 
supposed to listen from any deep interest in religion. And 
yet they do listen with intense and wrapt attention. 

And that much of all this love of discussion, springs from 
a deep well-spring of religious feeling, seems a matter of 
certainty. There is no other subject that commands the 
same influence. And as it is impossible to know the Irish 
peasantry without seeing that the religious element forms 
a large portion of their nature, so no one can be familiar 
with these discussions, without observing that the thought- 
ful, earnest, and good men among them, are thoroughly 
absorbed in the argument developed in these discussions. 

And the effects of these discussions have been very 
striking, not only upon the religiously-disposed, but upon 
persons who had till then proved the enemies of all real 
religion. In my very large experience, I never knew a 
single instance of a Protestant having been led to Romanism 
by them, though I have known many who were awakened in 
such discussions to the reality of true religion. And on the 
other hand, I have known some hundreds of Roman Catho- 
lics, so influenced by them, as not only to embrace Protest- 
antism, but to become earnest, devout, and holy Christians. 

So intense is this desire to hear the subject discussed, 
that no opposition, no command, no threats from the priests, 
can prevent their attendance when there is a prospect of 
that attendance being unknown. Very frequently they so 
dread the malediction of the priest, — they so dread a 
refusal to church their wives, or baptize their children, or 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 291 



to anoint the dying, or to marry the betrothed, — they so 
dread a refusal to do these things for the families and 
relations of those who attend such discussions, that they 
fear to attend where there is a likelihood of their attendance 
becoming known to their priests ; while at the same time if 
they are convinced they can do so without their knowledge 
they will be sure to be present. 

A very ludicrous scene that occurred in a parish church 
in the South of Ireland, will illustrate this. A clergyman 
well-known for his eloquence, was announced to preach on 
some controverted doctrine. It was in a district almost 
exclusively Roman Catholic, and on the appointed evening, 
the church was filled almost to suffocation by the members 
of the church of Rome. As it was in the autumn of the 
year the shades of evening had descended and it was neces- 
sary to light the church, and the preacher could look on a 
dense mass of earnest and attentive men, occupying every 
available space. Every seat and the floor of every pew 
was occupied, with at least three times the numbers which 
they originally were calculated to accommodate ; while the 
aisle was one solid mass of men, standing with eager and 
fixed gaze upon the preacher, and hanging with wrapped 
and absorbed attention upon every word that fell from his 
lips. All was still, — it seemed as if the mass of people held 
their breath, lest their very breathings should disturb the 
voice of the preacher. Nothing else could be heard but 
his loving and burning words- Suddenly there was a cry 
at the entrance. There was a rush, and a rude demand 
for admission, by one endeavouring to force his way through 
the thick masses of the people standing in the aisle. The 
preacher paused. Every eye was turned towards the in- 
O 2 



292 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



trader. In a moment a cry ran through the church, "It 
is the priest, — the priest ! " In the next moment there was 
a voice " Pat out the light, and then he can't see us ! " In 
an instant the active men sprung on the tops of the pews, 
and every light was extinguished. A low-toned voice was 
heard through the church, " The priest cannot see us now, 

M " addresing the preacher, "you can preach away 

now, and we can listen in the dark." A loud cheer even 
in so unsuitable a place followed this, and the preacher con- 
tinued his address, while the whole assembly was wrapped 
in darkness except from one small candle in the pulpit, to 
enable him to read the various references to the scriptures. 

The evening following that on which I had spoken on 
the priesthood of the church, there was a large attendance 
at my cottage lecture. I had concluded the usual prayers, 
and had commenced to read the Holy Scriptures, when a 
request was made and urged with great earnestness, that I 
would remove my seat to the doorway, and speak there, that 
so those who were standing without might have an oppor- 
tunity of hearing as well as those within. During the time 
occupied in prayer, a large and dense crowd of persons 
gathered around the cottage, and as there was no space 
within, they proposed my taking my position at the door- 
way, that so they all might hear alike. A deep interest 
seemed to pervade all, and the desire to hear seemed uni- 
versal. I gladly complied with the request. 

I read the liii. chapter of Isaiah. I gave a general ex- 
position of its subject-matter, and dwelt on the divine 
compassion and love, which it exhibited, and the obedience 
and gratitude it demanded of us in return. I then employed 
it to illustrate the subject of the evening. 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 



293 



I said that our subject was sacrifice — the alone sacrifice 
of Jesus Christ — that if there was any one truth more 
essentially Christian than another, it was that the sacrifice 
of the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross was the alone 
atoning or propitiating sacrifice for sin. All other sacrifices, 
as that of bulls, and goats, and calves, and lambs, under 
the levitical law, were but types. This was the original 
and antitype of all. All other sacrifices were but the 
shadows. This was the substance of all. It was this alone 
satisfied the demands of the divine law, and procured the 
remission and forgiveness of our sins. I added, that it 
was just here that the Protestant and Roman churches were 
at issue. Protestants hold that there is no other sacrifice 
to atone or propitiate for sin. Romanists believe that what 
they call the Mass is a propitiatory or atoning sacrifice for 
the sins of both the living and the dead. 

I proceeded to say that the language of the Holy Scrip- 
tures is full and explicit. It expressly states that all the 
preceding sacrifices were but shadows. It expressly states, 
that when the substance came, those shadows vanished 
away. The prophet describes Jesus Christ as the sacrificial 
victim, " who was wounded for our transgressions. He 
was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace 
was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed : All we 
like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to 
his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity 
of us all." — Isaiah liii. 5. One apostle says, " Christ being 
an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and 
more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to 
say, not of this building ; neither by the blood of goats 
and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into 



294 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an 
heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of 
the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who 
through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to 
God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the 
living God." — Heb. ix. 11 — 14. Another apostle says, 
" Ye know ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, 
as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by 
tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of 
Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." 
— ] Peter i. 18, 19. This is the sacrifice that reconciles 
the sinner to his God. " It pleased the Father, that in 
Him should all fulness dwell, and having made peace 
through the blood of His Cross, by Him to reconcile all 
things unto Himself ; by Him, I say, whether they be 
things in earth or things in heaven. And you, that were 
sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked 
works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body of his flesh 
through death, to present you holy and unblameable and 
unreprovable in His sight." — Col. i. 19 — 22. This is the 
sacrifice that effects atonement. " God commendeth His 
love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ 
died for us ; much more then, being now justified by His 
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him : for if 
when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the 
death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall 
be saved by His life : and not only so, bat we also joy in 
God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have 
received the atonement." — Rom. v. 8 — 12. This is the 
sacrifice that accomplishes propitiation. " If any man sin, 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 



295 



we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the 
righteous ; and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not 
for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world/' — 
1 John ii. I, 2. Here is the language of Scripture, pro- 
claiming, more distinctly than ever the thunders of Sinai 
proclaimed the law, the great and cardinal truth of the 
Gospel, that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross is the 
one sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of man. 

Having sufficiently established this position — I proceeded 
to make it bear on the question before us. I proceeded 
to show that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ being once 
offered, remains for ever the only sacrifice or offering for 
sin. The language of the Holy Scriptures is as follows : — 
" By one offering He hath perfected for ever them that 
are sanctified, whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness 
to us ; for after that He had said before, This is the 
covenant that I will make with them after those days, 
saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in 
their minds will I write them, and their sins and iniquities 
will I remember no more. Now where remission of these 
is, there is no more offering for sin." — Heb. x. 14 — 18. 
There remaineth, then, no more offering for sin. The phrase 
is changed a few verses afterwards, where He says, " There 
remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." — Verse 35. This 
language excludes all else but the death on the cross from 
being a propitiatory sacrifice — a sacrifice for sin. And on 
language thus full and clear and explicit, I affirmed the 
doctrine, without which, the future would frown with the 
blackness of despair ; but with which, the future brightens 
with the hope of glory, — a doctrine which we read in all the 
records of the past, — which we feel in all the experience of 



296 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



the present, — which we trace in all the predictions of the 
future, — a doctrine of which prophets sung, which apostles 
preached, for which confessors suffered, for which martyrs 
died, — the doctrine that the offering of Christ once made 
is the perfect redemption,**propitiation and satisfaction for 
all sins. And that there is no other than this — that its 
sufficiency excludes the necessity of any other, and that 
the language of Scripture absolutely excludes any other. 

I argued thus : — If the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross 
was a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice for our sins, then 
do we stand in need of none other, " He," says St. John, 
" is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, 
but also for the sins of the whole world." If this be true of 
the sacrifice of the Cross, then there is no need of the sacri- 
fice of the Mass. If the sacrifice of the Cross takes away all 
our sins, then there are no sins for the sacrifice of the Mass 
to take away. And for any Church to teach that the sacri- 
fice of the Mass does propitiate and take away our sins as 
efficaciously as the sacrifice of the Cross, — for any Church 
to teach that the sacrifice of the Mass is necessary, after 
the sacrifice of the Cross, for the propitiation of our sins, 
— for any Church to teach this, is all one with saying the 
sacrifice of the Cross was not sufficient ; it is all one with 
saying, that it wanted the assistance of the Mass ; it is all 
one with placing the sacrifice of the Mass on a level with 
the sacrifice of the Cross ; it is all one with setting up the 
Mass as a partner or a rival to the Cross in the work of 
propitiation. It is an impeachment of the honour of Christ ; 
it is an affront upon His sacrifice, it is an injury to His 
blood, it is a blasphemy against His Cross ; it is, in the 
language of the Article of the Church of England, " a 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 297 



blasphemous fable," and therefore " a dangerous de- 
ceit." 

When I came thus far, I paused, and in order to induce 
conversation, asked, whether I was fully comprehended, and 
whether there was any one who desired to ask a question. 

My proposal was accepted by one who was in the habit 
of discussing such questions in the houses of the various 
inhabitants who were interested in these subjects. 

He expressed his entire assent to all that had been stated 
as to the fulness of the atonement, in the sacrifice of Jesus 
Christ — that the doctrine of the Roman catholic church 
was precisely the same as had been described by me from 
the Holy Scriptures — that there was no difference what- 
ever between the Protestants and Roman Catholics about 
it — that although there was no difference about the sacri- 
fice of Jesus Christ, there was a difference between the 
churches on the Mass, or as Protestants have it, the Lord's 
Supper. The difference is this — the Roman Catholics look 
on the Mass as the very same as the sacrifice of Jesus 
Christ, — as a repetition or continuation of it ; while Protes- 
tants think the Lord's Supper only the remembrance or 
memorial of that sacrifice. Now, he said, as we of the 
church of Rome believe the sacrifice of the Mass to be one 
and the same — completely and identically the same as the 
sacrifice on the cross, having by transubstantiation the 
same Jesus Christ in body and spirit the sacrificial victim, 
the same body killed, and the same blood shed, in every- 
thing the very same, one and identical sacrifice ; we believe 
that, if that on the cross was a true and propitiatory and 
atoning sacrifice for sins, then that in the Mass must be a 
true and propitiatory and atoning sacrifice for sins also. 
5 



298 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Whatever we believe of one, we believe of the other, be- 
cause they, by transubstantiation, are one and the same. 
We can see no difference whatever between them ; if indeed 
the sacrifice of the Mass was another and distinct and dif- 
ferent thing from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, then it would 
be an implying that that of Jesus Christ was not sufficient 
and required an additional sacrifice ; but this is not the case 
in the church of Rome, the sacrifice of the Mass is not a 
different or additional sacrifice, but is one and the same 
identically with the sacrifice of the cross. The ceremony 
performed by our priest in our chapel, is the very same as 
the scene performed on mount Calvary, and is in reality a 
repetition or continuation of it ; its substance by transub- 
stantiation is the very same, and therefore its value for pro- 
pitiation or atonement for sin must be the very same. 

I asked as he concluded, whether he meant to identify 
the sacrifice of the Mass with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ ; 
— to identify the ceremony performed by the modern Ro- 
man priests with the crucifixion perpetrated by the ancient 
Roman soldiers — to identify the services of the church of 
Rome with the awful tragedy upon Calvary ? I asked this 
with the view of fixing the minds of all present upon the 
real nature of the doctrine. 

, He replied in the affirmative, adding, that the church 
believed in transubstantiation, and that this made the sacri- 
fice of the Mass, the same as the sacrifice on the cross. 

" I do not believe that," exclaimed one of the Roman 
Catholics, "for in the Mass there is no cross at all ; and 
even when the priest holds up the blessed Jesus in his 
hands, and elevates the Host for us to adore, there is no 
cross, except the sign of the cross which he makes with 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 



299 



his hand ; there is no crucifixion — no thieves on either side, 
and above all, no blessed Virgin at his feet, no, nor any 
soldiers to mock and run the long spear into his side." 
This was spoken with all the seriousness of an earnest man. 

" Neither do I believe it," added another, amidst the 
sensation created by this objection, "for the Blessed Mother 
of God was at the crucifixion, and so was the holy Magda- 
lene ; it was then the sword pierced through and through 
the heart of the Blessed Virgin herself, and there is nothing 
of all that in the Mass ; if the Mass were the same as the 
crucifixion, surely the Blessed Virgin would be there." 
This was said with great energy of manner. 

" And sure she is there," said another Romanist, in a 
voice that savored of sly irony, " she is there — in the pic- 
ture over the altar." 

A titter ran through the room, at the tone in which this 
was uttered, and I hastened to repress it ; such occasions 
are constantly occurring among a people whose love of a 
smart saying cannot be stifled even by the gravest and most 
serious subjects. They are intensely religious, but at the 
same time intensely humorous. 

I said that the statement made by our Roman Catholic 
friend was of the gravest kind, and deserved our gravest 
examination. He had said that the sacrifice of the Mass by 
the priest is identically the same as the sacrifice of Jesus 
Christ by the soldiers. This makes one as precious, as 
meritorious, as influential, as acceptable with God in pro- 
pitiation or atonement for sins as the other. Indeed, if they 
are one and the same, then if the sacrifice on the cross 
was able to save a lost and sinful world, the same will be 



300 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



equally true of the sacrifice of the Mass, — it will be able to 
save a lost and ruined world. 

I was here interrupted by a Protestant who said, <c If the 
sacrifice of the cross has saved us by having made atone- 
ment for the sins of all them that believe, there can be no 
necessity for the sacrifice of the Mass to do it over again ; 
I understood that to be the argument first stated, that to 
offer the sacrifice of the Mass in order to propitiate or 
atone for sins, was to imply the insufficiency or in efficacy 
of the work done by the sacrifice of the cross which pre- 
ceded it." 

I continued to say, that such was my argument, and that 
our friend had not answered it by saying that the sacrifice 
of the cross, and the sacrifice of the Mass were the same ; 
for it is clear, that if the sacrifice of the cross was sufficient 
there can be no need of any repetition or continuation. 
However, I added, we may as well confute it. 

Our first argument, to prove that the sacrifice of the 
Mass is not a repetition or continuation of the sacrifice of 
the Cross, is this : — The Scriptures expressly state, that 
our Lord was to die once and only once, — that His death 
was never to be repeated, — and that by that one death, 
the whole propitiation or atonement was perfected. 

The Scriptures, which teach this, are many and explicit. 
We refer to the following : — cc Christ being raised from the 
dead, dieth no more : death hath no more dominion over 
Him. For in that He died, He died unto sin once, but in 
that He liveth He liveth unto God." — Rom. vi. 9, 10. 
These words exclude all repetition of His death, for " He 
died unto sin once," and " He dieth no more'" We then 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 



301 



refer to the following place : — " Nor yet that He should 
offer Himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy- 
place every year with the blood of others ; for then must 
He often have suffered since the foundation of the world ; 
but now, once in the end of the world, hath He appeared 
to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is 
appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judg- 
ment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many ; 
and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the 
second time, without sin unto salvation." — Heb. ix. 25 — 28. 
It is here stated, that He was once offered as a sacrifice for 
sin, and that He was not to be offered often; which utterly 
excludes the possibility of His being offered in the sacrifice 
of the mass. We again refer to the following Scripture : — 
" We are sanctified through the offering of the body of 
Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily 
ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, 
which can never take away sins ; but this man, after He 
had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the 
right hand of God, from henceforth expecting till His ene- 
mies be made His footstool. For by one offering He hath 
perfected for ever them that are sanctified." — Heb. x. 10 — 
14. In these words there is still that remarkable reitera- 
tion of Christ being once offered, and that by that offering 
" once for all," the whole work of propitiation has been 
perfected. It looks like the forecastings of Infinite Wis- 
dom, — it looks like the anticipations of Omniscience, — it 
looks as if the Holy Spirit had foreseen the evil and pre- 
pared the remedy. The inference is legitimate, that the 
death of Jesus Christ was not to be repeated, — that His 
death was not to be continued, for He arose from the dead, 



302 EVENINGS WIT El THE ROMANISTS. 



— -that the offering on the Cross was not to be continued, 
for He was taken down from the Cross ; and therefore, 
that the sacrifice of the Mass is neither a repetition nor a 
continuation of the sacrifice of the Cross. 

I had scarcely concluded, when our opposing friend again 
broke in, saying, that the sacrifice of the Mass was not a 
repetition, but a continuation of the sacrifice of the Cross, 

One of the Protestants present, a very aged and vener- 
able looking man, with long snow-white hair streaming upon 
his shoulders, one thoroughly versed in the Scriptures, and 
universally respected for his personal piety, now stood up, 
and resting both his hands on his staff and leaning forward 
upon it, as with the weakness of many years, he said, it 
was very sad, that men, in speaking about God and their 
souls, should make so much of difference between a repeti- 
tion and a continuation, or rather a continuation that was 
not a repetition. When men were arguing in that way it 
seldom led to any good results, either in the speakers or in 
the hearers. But, he said, that it appeared to his simple 
judgment, that as each Mass is in itself a distinct and 
separate ceremony — as each mass has a beginning and an 
end — as each Mass is performed at different hours and 
different days, and in different parishes and different lands, 
and by different priests and for different congregations, 
so they cannot be a continuation, but a repetition. It is a 
repetition of the same ceremony again and again. And 
when the priests demand money for Masses for the repose 
of the souls of the dead, they always count the number of 
distinct and separate Masses, as being distinct and separate 
repetitions of the same ceremony. They always count as 
one or ten or twenty Masses, and not as one continuing 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 303 



Mass. But in any light such repeated or continual sacrifices 
cannot be effectual to take away sin. Even if we were to 
suppose, that the Mass is a sacrifice offered upon the altars 
of Rome, year by year, and day by day, continually, such a 
supposition — zealously as they contend for it- — would be a 
death-blow to the propitiatory character assumed for it. It 
is the record of Revelation, that those "sacrifices, which are 
offered year by year continually, can never make the comers 
thereunto perfect."~H.eb. x. 1. And again: — "Every 
priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the 
same sacrifices, which can never take away sin." — Heb. x. 1 1 . 
If, then, the sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice, 
offered year by year continually, — if it is a sacrifice minis- 
tered daily and offered oftentimes, — if, in short, the sacrifice 
of the Mass is that which they would persuade us it is ; 
namely, a repetition or continuation of the sacrifice of the 
Cross, yearly and daily offered, — then, on their own show- 
ing, — on their own principle, — the sacrifice of the Mass 
cannot be a propitiatory sacrifice; it is a sacrifice, that "can 
never take away sin." 

There was something in the manner and matter of this 
address, especially as coming from a very aged man, and 
one of their own class, that had a striking effect on all 
present. An argument well expressed and coming from 
one of their own class has always great weight among the 
peasantry. They seem to feel a kind of pride in it ; and 
though, perhaps, opposed to their opinions, they yet feel 
pleased at its coming from one of themselves. And cer- 
tainly, on the present occasion, there was no disposition to 
reply to it. In the silence that ensued, I resumed the subject. 

I stated, that there was another argument on this point, 



304 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS- 



and reminded them, that it had been stated that the sacri- 
fice of the Mass was identically the same as the sacrifice of 
the Cross. On this I argued, — if this be true, then our 
Lord Jesus Christ must suffer all the agonies of the sacrifice 
of the Cross every time He is offered in the sacrifice of 
the Mass. This argument is founded on the words of the 
apostle, where he says that Christ was to be offered but 
once. " Nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as 
the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with 
the blood of others ; for then must He often have suffered 
since the foundation of the world ; but now once in the 
end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the 
sacrifice of Himself." It is here stated, that Christ was 
to be offered but once, and that if He was offered often, 
then He must have suffered often. As He could not be 
offered as a sacrifice for sin without suffering and death, 
so if He was often offered as a sacrifice for sin, He must 
often have been exposed to suffering and death. Now the 
sufferings and agonies of Jesus on the Cross, were beyond 
the tongue of men and angels to describe ; they were in- 
finite as the sins of man for which He suffered, and the 
justice of God which He satisfied. And the words of the 
apostle imply, that, if the sacrifice of the Cross was often 
offered, then all these infinite sufferings must have been as 
often inflicted on Jesus Christ. I therefore argued that if 
the sacrifice of the Mass be indeed a repetition or continua- 
tion of the sacrifice of the Cross, then must Jesus Christ 
be exposed to all the agonies and horrors of that death, 
every time the sacrifice of the Mass is offered : or in the 
words of the apostle, " then He must often have suffered 
since the foundation of the world." 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 



305 



I anticipated an answer to this. The members of the 
church of Rome feel the argument keenly, as it implies a 
cruelty and a wickedness in their priests and in themselves 
to repeat or continue the sufferings of Christ ; and yet if 
the sacrifice of the Mass be a repetition or a continuation of 
the sacrifice of the cross, it seems difficult to avoid the ac- 
cusation. I felt therefore, that there would be some at- 
tempt at an answer, and as I was aware of the answers 
usually attempted, I was prepared to reply. 

The intelligent person who. had already spoke for the 
church of Rome, at once replied, that there could be no 
sufferings in the sacrifice of the Mass, because that it was 
all mystical — all unreal, for that in the Mass Jesus Christ 
was not put to death really, but only mystically — that the 
sacrificial knife was not real but only, mystical — that the 
shedding of his blood was not real, but only mystical — that 
the sufferings were not real, but only mystical. Now, he 
argued, the charge of cruelty and wickedness must fall to 
the ground, as the whole sacrifice is unreal and only mys- 
tical. There is neither cruelty nor wickedness ; and as for 
the Holy Scripture where it is said, that if He be offered 
often, "then He must often have suffered," it is plain that 
St. Paul is speaking of real offerings, and therefore of real 
sufferings ; but this has nothing to do with the sacrifice of 
the Mass, which is not real, but only mystical. 

" Why, man alive ! " exclaimed one of his very zealous 
co-religionists, " sure that is as bad as the doctrine of the 
Protestants themselves ! " 

The laugh created by this naive exclamation, led to seve- 
ral remarks, more or less irrelevant. I quieted them, by re- 
minding them of the solemnity and importance of the sub- 



306 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



ject, and said, that the exclamation as to the Protestantism 
of this doctrine, had considerable truth in it. The doctrine 
of the church of Rome was, that the Mass was " a true 
and proper and propitiatory sacrifice for sins," and the 
argument of our Roman Catholic friend was that it was 
an unreal and mystical sacrifice ! I confessed myself un- 
able to reconcile the two statements — that by transub- 
stantiation Jesus Christ is really and substantially the 
victim, but that the killing and dying and suffering are 
only unreal and mystical — that the priesthood who offers, 
is real and true, and that the offering and knife and cross, 
are only unreal and mystical — that when we allude to 
transubstantiation, all is declared to be real and substantial, 
and when we allude to the sacrifice of the Mass, all is 
explained as unreal and mystical ! I confessed that I could 
not understand the inconsistency of all this, and felt that 
all must be taken literally, and this would imply a literal 
presence, a literal victim, a literal death, and literal suffer- 
ings, or all should be taken figuratively, and then there 
would be a figurative presence, a figurative victim, a figur- 
ative death, and figurative sufferings, and this would an- 
nihilate transubstantiation. The truth is, I added, the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation, and the doctrine of the Mass 
contradict each other, and they cannot be reconciled. 

Our friend replied again, that so far from contradicting 
the sacrifice of the Mass, the doctrine of transubstantiation 
was its chief and real foundation. The bread and the 
wine are changed at the mysterious words of the priest, 
into the true and substantial body and blood of the blessed 
Jesus, and this is the foundation of the Mass ; but, he 
added, he would not argue that point now, but would 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 



307 



say, that in the sacrifice of the Mass there are no suffer- 
ings, for there is no shedding of blood ; this is the real 
point of the argument; it was argued that if the sacri- 
fice of the Mass, was the same as the sacrifice of the cross, 
then it would be a wickedness and cruelty to be putting the 
Blessed Saviour to a repetition or continuation of his suf- 
ferings. " Now, I have said," he contiuued, " that the 
sufferings in the Mass are not real sufferings but only mys- 
tical, and I now say farther, that there can be no real suf- 
ferings where the blood is not shed ; and in the sacrifice of 
the Mass, there is no shedding of blood, The Roman ca- 
tholic church teaches that the sacrifice of the Mass is an 
unbloody sacrifice — that the Saviour is there unbloodily of- 
fered — that He is sacrificed in an unbloody manner. The 
church has taught this over and over again, in the council 
of Trent, and even in the children's catechisms, and there- 
fore, since the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice it follows that 
there are no sufferings. 

I felt now that the argument was in precisely that state 
in which I could deal with the question so as to tell upon 
the popular mind, by giving that kind of answer that at 
once lays hold of the mind of the people ; — an answer, not 
subtle or refined, but plain, broad, strong and striking. I 
had so often observed its success on other occasions, that 
I felt confident of its effect now. 

I said that I would make three observations on what had 
been stated so well, so clearly, and so temperately. 

The first observation was, that the argument of our friend 
had been that the sacrifice of the Mass, was the very same 
identically with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross ; 
but now we learn, that so far from being identically the 



308 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



same, they are widely different ; that on the cross was a 
bloody sacrifice, while that in the Mass is an unbloody sa- 
crifice ; that on the cross was a suffering sacrifice, while 
that in the Mass is not a suffering sacrifice. The sacrifice 
on the cross was a sacrifice unto a real death, while that 
in the Mass is a sacrifice with only a mystical death ! Thus 
having commenced with telling us that the sacrifice of the 
Mass, was identically the same as the sacrifice of the cross, 
we are now to learn that so far from being identically the 
same, they actually differ on those particulars that more 
than all else constitute the essence of a sacrifice — the shed- 
ding of blood, the endurance of suffering, and, the infliction 
of death ! All these, we know, were in the sacrifice of the 
cross, and none of these, we are told, are in the sacrifice of 
the Mass ! And yet they tell us, that they are one and the 
same — identically the same ! 

The second remark which should be impressed on all is, 
that if the Mass be an unbloody sacrifice it cannot be a 
propitiatory or atoning sacrifice for sin. Every one con- 
versant with the doctrine of sacrifice, as revealed in the 
Scriptures, is aware that atonement and forgiveness are un- 
alterably connected with the shedding of the blood of the 
sacrificial victim. It would occupy too much time to open 
this principle as fully as it deserves, but it is sufficient for 
our present purpose, to remark that Moses lays it down in 
the Old Testament, that " it is the blood that maketh atone- 
ment for the sow/." — Lev. xvii. 11 : and that St. Paul lays 
it down in the New Testament, that " without shedding of 
blood there is no remission.'" — Heb. ix. 22. The doctrine 
of the Scriptures is, that there can be " no atonement," 
and that there can be "no remission of sins " unless there 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 



309 



be the blood of sacrifice. And yet the advocates of Rome 
confess that the Mass is an " unbloody sacrifice ; " and thus 
confess, that in it there can be no atonement or " remission 
of sins ! " They had told us, that the Mass was a pro- 
pitatory — an expiatory — an atoning sacrifice ; and now, as 
if all this had faded from their memory — they labour with 
untiring assiduity to persuade us, it is only " an unbloody 
sacrifice." And therefore, on their own shewing, it is a 
sacrifice without propitiation, expiation, or atonement. 

But the third and last observation I would make on the 
statement that the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice, is, that it 
establishes a plain inconsistency with the doctrine of tran- 
substantiation. It brings these two doctrines, the Mass 
and Transubstantiation, two chief and cardinal doctrines of 
the church of Rome, into broad and unmistakeable opposi- 
tion. According to the doctrine of the Mass, it is an un- 
bloody sacrifice. In order to escape the charge of cruelty 
and wickedness in continuing or repeating the sufferings of 
the Cross, they say, that the sacrifice of the Mass is un- 
bloody. It is so described in the Council of Trent : it is 
so described in the children's catechisms, it has been so 
described by our friend here this evening. It is an un- 
bloody sacrifice : there is no blood. But we are also told 
of transubstantiation that the bread and wine are transub- 
stantiated into the very, true, substantial body and blood 
of Jesus Christ ; and that it is thus that they have Him 
as the sacrificial victim, whole and entire, on their altars. 
.They have no longer bread and wine. They have only the 
body and the blood. If then all is blood, and nothing 
but blood : if all the wine be turned into blood, and nothing 
remains but blood, how can they say that in the Mass there 



310 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



is no blood—that it is an unbloody sacrifice ? When they 
are defending transubstantiation, all is bloody ; when they 
are defending- the sacrifice of the Mass, all is unbloody ! 

This acted like magic upon my hearers. They gave the 
most unmistakeable evidence of their feeling ; and in a 
moment, when I paused to let it have its full effect, and 
to give any one an opportunity for reply, the whole num- 
ber, both of Protestants and Romanists, were speaking in 
low whispers. It was soon apparent that there was a deep 
impression made upon all, and that there would be no fur- 
ther reply. I therefore made some general remarks with 
the view of impressing, as far as I could, all present with 
a deep sense of the love of Him who left the heavens for us, 
and bled and suffered and died a sacrifice for our sins ; and 
of the necessity for all of us, to lay aside all other ground 
of hope — all self-dependence or self-righteousness — all de- 
pendence on rites or ceremonies, and to rest in faith and 
hope and love upon that which would be found in the 
great day to be the only atonement for sin. 

Note.— There are certain texts sometimes cited by Roman Catholics 
to justify their doctrine, that the mass is " a true, proper, propitiatory, 
and atoning sacrifice for sin." 

I. One of these places is Acts xiii. 2, where it is said of some of the 
Christian prophets and teachers, [There is no mention of either bishops 
or priests,] that they " ministered to the Lord." On this they argue that 
the word "ministered" in the original means " sacrificed," or " offered 
sacrifice," and that these words imply that these Christians offered the 
sacrifice of the Mass. The answer to this is — 

That the original word means nothing of the kind, but simply any public 
or official service, whether civil or religious. Accordingly it is applied hv» 
Rom. xiii. 6, to the civil magistrate collecting the taxes or tribute, Again 
it is applied in 2 Cor. ix. 12. to the Christian distributing the money col- 
lected for their poorer brethren. Again it is applied in Heb. i. 14. to the 



THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 311 



Angels sent to minister to the heirs of salvation, Again, in Rom. xv. 27. 
it is applied to those who were bound in Christian fellowship, "to minis- 
ter in carnal things," that is, in money, to those who had brought to 
them the spiritual blessings of the gospel. 

That according to those places, the word means any public or private 
service ; and therefore, in the place cited, it merely means that the Chris- 
tian prophets and teachers were assembled together in some religious 
service. The place makes no allusion whatever to sacrifice, and certainly 
not to the sacrifice of the Mass. 

But as they could not find the sacrifice of the Mass already in the Holy 
Scriptures, the translators of the French Bible, called " the Bourdeaux 
Bible," were resolved to place it there ; and by an outrageous falsification, 
which was nothing less than sacrilege, they translated this place, "As they 
offered unto the Lord the sacrifice of the mass, and fasted," &c. 
They thus inserted the words, "the sacrifice of the mass," so as to deceive 
the people into the belief that they had the authority of Holy Scripture 
for their doctrine ! They were afraid to do this in a Bible-reading land 
like England. 

II. They often refer to Gen. xiv. 18, where Melchizedek is described 
as meeting Abraham and his people returning from the rescue of Lot. 
The narrative states, that Melchizedek "brought forth bread and wine : 
and he was a priest of the Most High God, and blessed Abraham." On 
these words they argue, that Melchizedek, because he was a priest, brought 
forth bread and wine to offer in sacrifice — just like the sacrifice of the 
Mass. The answer to this which I have found generally effective, is — 

That Melchizedek brought this bread and wine to welcome and refresh 
Abraham and his people, after their night expedition. And that Josephus, 
the Jewish historian, narrates the circumstance in that way. And cer- 
tainly there is in the narrative nothing whatever to suggest the idea of 
sacrifices. His Priesthood is mentioned to account for his blessing Abra- 
ham, and not on account of any sacrifice of bread and wine. But in the 
Romish translation of the place, they have most improperly departed from 
the original Hebrew, and rendered the words — '•'•And he was a Priest," 
by "for he was a Priest." 

That even supposing that there was a sacrifice of bread and wine, and 
that this sacrifice was, as they assert, a type of the sacrifice of the Mass ; 
it would then prove, that the mass was a sacrifice of merely bread and 
wine. Transubstantiation would be necessarily overthrown ; and the Mass 
prove after all, no more than mere bread and wine ! 



312 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



III. They refer frequently to Mai. i. 11, where in allusion to the times 
of the Messiah— to Christian times, it is foretold that among the Gentiles 
" incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering." On this 
they argue, that it implies, that there was to be " a pure offering," or ob- 
lation among the Gentiles ; and that this must allude to the offering of the 
sacrifice of the Mass. The answer to this is — 

That incense under the law was a type of prayer ; and David therefore 
says — " Let my prayer be set before thee as incense : " and that a pure 
offering was the type of the offering of Jesus Christ, for the salvation of 
the Gentiles as well as the Jews. And thus the prophecy is merely de- 
scribing the character of our Gentile times, that among them, " from the 
rising of the sun to the going down of the same ; " — that is, from East to 
West through the world, the Gentiles would yet be presenting their 
prayers to the true God, and rest for the true atonement of their sins upon 
the sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah. 

That in strict fulfilment of all this prediction, the nations that have been 
converted to Christianity in the East and in the West, are now in the 
language of the Apostle, Rom. xii. 1 — " presenting their bodies a living 
sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God." There is not here a word about 
the Mass. 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 



A CONVERSATION ON OUR LORd's WORDS IN THIS CHAPTER THE 

ROMISH INTERPRETATION THE PROTESTANT EXPLANATION 

THE ALLUSION TO THE ASCENSION, AND THE ARGUMENT DERIVED 
FROM IT THE ANCIENT FATHERS NOT UNANIMOUS ON IT, AC- 
CORDING TO THE COUNCIL OF TRENT THE OPINIONS OF EUSE- 

BIUS, TE RTULLI AN, AUGUSTINE, ORIGEN, AS TO THE MEANING 
OF THIS DISCOURSE AUGUSTINe's EXPLANATION OF THE AL- 
LUSION TO THE ASCENSION EVIDENCE AGAINST THE LITERAL 

INTERPRETATION THE ARGUMENT CONNECTED WITH THE COM- 
ING DOWN FROM HEAVEN DIFFICULTIES TO THE CHURCH OF 

ROME HERSELF, ARISING FROM HER OWN INTERPRETATION. 

It is seldom that a female makes an effective controver- 
sialist. The eager and impulsive tendency of her nature — 
the instinct, the passion, and the feeling that belongs to 
her, are too intense for the war of argument ; and she 
is sure to lay herself open to the wary, watchful, and subtle 
opponent. 

In a considerable town, in the west of Ireland, resided a 
female, whose controversial reputation, in that locality, was 
of the first magnitude. She was the proprietor of the 
principal establishment of a mercantile kind in the town, 
and thus was possessed of wealth and position which 
gave to her a certain amount of local influence ; and this 

P 



314 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



in some sort gave strength to her controversial lore. She 
was a member of the church of Rome, a kind, charitable, 
good woman, pious and religious according to her principles, 
and esteemed and respected, because she deserved it, in 
every relation of life. Her one failing — and yet it was that 
which created her fame — was a love of controversy. It 
was impossible to buy a ribbon, or to purchase a cap, with- 
out her finding some opportunity of saying a word for the 
Roman church ; and she could not try on a shawl or dis- 
pose of a veil without giving some wound to the Protes- 
tant religion. Intolerable as this would ordinarily be, yet 
persons learned to bear with it, from sincere respect for her 
general character. They looked upon it as an oddity or 
peculiarity to be pardoned. 

I had been on a visit with some friends in the country, 
about six or seven miles from the town. And as some of 
them were obliged to go there one day to make some pur- 
chases, they proposed I should accompany them. They 
told me beforehand that this female controversialist knew 
me by name, and had expressed a wish to see me, and that 
I must therefore be prepared for an attack on her part. 

We met; purchases were made, and, as not unusual, 
some purchases were exchanged for others. By some 
means or other she managed to make some incidental allu- 
sion to the change in transubstantiation. It is impossible 
now to say how precisely the allusion arose, but she man- 
aged to drag in the subject. Perhaps the lady, whom I 
had accompanied, and at whose house I was staying, was 
mischievous, but certainly she noticed the allusion with, 
as it seemed to me, the purpose of involving me ; at all 
events, one thing led to another, till our female contro- 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 



315 



versialist expressed lier fear that I did not believe in Tran- 
s instantiation. 

I said, very gently and kindly and courteously, that I 
was unable to believe it ;< — that whether it was some scep- 
tical tendencies in my mind, or some mental mal-formation 
that incapacitated me from receiving that dogma ; — that 
whether it was a defect in the evidence for it, or a defect 
in myself and my prejudices, it was very certain I had never 
been able to see it in the same light that it appeared to her. 

She spoke in the same spirit, and said, that every object 
we look at varies very much according to the light in which 
we view it, or the point from which we see it. This silk, 
she said, taking up a piece of shot silk, if seen in one light 
is a beautiful brown, and seen in another is a lovely lilac. 

The illustration, I said, seemed to imply that possibly 
we might both be right, and that our difference was only a 
difference of position ! And then, I added expressively, 
there could be no reason for excluding either party from 
the privileges and graces — from the forgiveness and salva- 
tion of the church of God ! On this principle exclusive 
salvation is a folly and a crime. 

She saw at a glance the point of my words, and felt the 
mistake she had made ; but said, with great readiness, that 
her allusion applied to different views of the same truths, 
not to a faithful reception and an unbelieving rejection of 
one ; — to different views of, for example, the real presence, 
not to a positive rejection of it altogether. She then said, 
gently and suggestively, that she supposed I rejected alto- 
gether the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 

I bowed assent, adding, that I could not believe it. 
She smiled gently, and expressed surprise it should be 
P 2 



316 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



so, as Protestants so frequently spoke of deriving everything 
from the Holy Scriptures ; and our Lord said expressly — 
" Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of 
the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in 
you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath 
eternal life ; and I will raise him up at the last day. For 
my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He 
that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in 
me, and I in him." — John vi. 53 — 56. There is Scripture 
at all events to justify our belief in transubstantiation. 

I replied, by reminding her that the silk that seemed 
brown at one moment appeared lilac at another. And that 
thus these words when taken alone and without explanation 
might seem to have one. sense, but when viewed in connec- 
tion with our Lord's explanation immediately after, they 
appeared in a totally different light. Now what was our 
Lord's explanation ? His disciples evidently misunderstood 
Him, and murmured at His words, which, taken literally, 
seemed harsh and unnatural and revolting ; for the idea of 
their eating him — the idea of taking blood, which was ex- 
pressly forbidden by their law — the idea of their becoming 
cannibals, was unnatural and revolting to their feelings. He 
therefore at once corrected them, saying they should have 
seen that His words were spiritual and living words, — " It 
is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing : 
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they 
are life." — Verse 63. Our Lord thus corrects their error 
in having understood Him in a literal or fleshly sense. He 
tells them that such a sense was unprofitable, and that His 
words should be understood in a spiritual and living sense, 
in other words, in a figurative sense. 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 317 



She listened to this with a smile of intense satisfaction — 
a smile that betrayed her acquaintance with it before, and 
her own feeling of pleasure in the opportunity now afforded 
her of answering it. She said, in a tone of great triumph, x 
with a sort of inward laugh, that such could not have been 
the meaning of our Lord, for that He shews He intended 
to imply a miracle — a wonderful miracle — a miracle greater 
than even His ascension ; for He adds, when the disciples 
murmured — " Doth this offend you ? What ! and if ye 
shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before?" 
— Verse 61. Thus implying that they ought not to mur- 
mur at the miracle of Transubstantiation — at their eating 
thereby His flesh and blood — inasmuch as they were soon 
destined to witness the wonderful miracle of His ascension 
to heaven. When they should see a miracle like that, they 
would no longer doubt the miracle of Transubstantiation. 

She seemed delighted with this argument, which cer- 
tainly was sufficiently ingenious. But the expression of 
her face entirely changed when I said, as before, that as 
the silk looked brown in one aspect and lilac in another, so 
there was a totally different view of this passage, namely, 
the view taken of it by all the fathers and saints of the 
primitive church. 

She eagerly interrupted me, and asked what it was. 

I replied, that I was going to describe it ; and that as 
her church professed such profound reverence for the 
fathers and saints of primitive times, the St. Augustines 
and St. Athanasiuses, so I was sure she would bow to their 
interpretation. They state, that when the disciples mur- 
mured at His words, He asked them, "Doth this offend 
you ? " that is, does this language lead you to err and fall 



318 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



— does this language lead you astray ? and then He added, 
" What ! ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He 
was before." When you see Him ascend into heaven, you 
may be sure you cannot eat or drink Him on earth — you 
shall see Him ascend into heaven, and therefore you can 
never think of eating literally His flesh, or drinking literally 
His blood. He will be enthroned in the heaven of hea- 
vens, and how can you so foolishly think that I meant you 
were to eat me on earth ? And thus our Lord's words, 
alluding to His ascension, are an argument of His own 
against the notion of literally eating and drinking Him ; 
and having thus argued against this, He adds, that as- 
suredly they ought to have seen that His words were not 
to be understood in a fleshly sense but in a spiritual sense, 
" It is the Spirit that quicken eth ; the flesh profiteth no- 
thing : the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, 
and they are life." Now, I added, that this was the in- 
terpretation which the old fathers and saints of the primi- 
tive church took of this allusion to the Ascension, and that 
I must confess my entire agreement with them. 

She listened to this with great attention ; it was evidently 
new to her ; she was wholly unprepared with an answer. 
And my statement, that it was the opinion of the primitive 
church, had its weight with her ; she mused on it for some 
moments, while my friend and myself exchanged amused 
glances at her perplexity. She then said very gently, that 
she had never heard that view of the allusion to the Ascen- 
sion before, and that she was not then prepared to answer 
it, but that she would do so when she saw me again, which 
she hoped. would be very soon. 

We parted for the time. 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 319 



I saw her again a few days afterwards, and I brought 
with me a small manuscript-book in which I had copied a 
variety of passages I had met with in the writers of the 
primitive church. This little volume was to me a very 
constant and useful companion for many years, owing to 
the strong feeling of reverence in which anything from the 
fathers and saints of the primitive times, is regarded among 
the Roman Catholics. As soon as I saw my fair antagonist, 
I reminded her of my argument in our preceding conver- 
sation — that I had argued that the words of our Lord, as 
to eating his flesh and drinking his blood, were to be inter- 
preted figuratively, and also that his allusion to the ascen- 
sion into heaven, was designed by him as an argument 
against the literal interpretation, a divine argument of our 
Lord himself against the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 

She replied that she had a perfect recollection of what 
had passed, and she added, with a very arch and sceptical 
expression, that she recollected how I said that the fathers 
and saints of the primitive church agreed with me. 

I said she was perfectly correct, and that I had brought 
with me for her, the opinions to which I referred. I then 
read from Eusebius. 

" Verily, verily, I say unto you, whoso eateth my flesh 
and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him. When 
He was mystically saying these and similar things, some of 
his disciples said to him, ' This is a hard saying, who can 
hear it ? ' And in reply to them, our Saviour says, ' Doth 
this offend you ? What, and if you shall see the son of 
man ascend up where he was before. It is the spirit that 
quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the word that I 
speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.' By these 



320 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



words he designed to teach them that what they had heard 
of his flesh and blood was to be understood in a spiritual 
sense, as if he said, Do not think that I am speaking of the 
flesh with which I am surrounded, as if you ought to eat 
that, nor imagine you are to drink of my sensible and corpo- 
real blood, but you must clearly understand that the words 
which I speak unto you are spirit and life ; so that his words 
and discourses are flesh and blood, and if a man eat of 
them, as feeding on celestial food, he shall be a partaker 
of life eternal. Therefore, says He, let not this offend you, 
which I have said about eating my flesh and drinking my 
blood, nor be troubled at the superficial hearing of what I 
said of meat and drink ; for these, if understood carnally, 
will be unprofitable, for it is the spirit that quickeneth 
those who understand them spiritually." B. 3. Eccl. Theol. 

I remarked simply that there was no mistaking the 
meaning of this Father, and then I read from Tertullian. 

"They thought his discourses were harsh and intolerable, 
as if he had determined that they were truly to eat his flesh ; 
he premises, in order to describe the state of salvation in the 
spirit : ' it is the spirit that quickeneth/ and then he adds, 
' the flesh profiteth nothing/ that is, for quickening, c the 
words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are 
life/ as he had already said — ' Whoso heareth my words 
and belie veth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, 
and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from 
death unto life,' thereby declaring his discourses to be that 
which quickeneth, for his discourses are spirit and life. He 
declares the same discourse to be also his flesh, for his dis- 
course was made his flesh, and for that reason it is to be 
sought and eaten by hearing, and chewed by the under- 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 321 



standing, and digested by faith ; for a little before, he had 
pronounced his flesh to be heavenly meat, urging still 
under the figures of necessary food, the remembrance of 
their fathers." De Resur. 

I only observed to her on this, that it shewed how those 
w T riters interpreted this subject figuratively. I then read 
from Athanasius. * 

" When our Lord spake of the eating of his body, and 
when he saw that many were offended, he forthwith added, 
' Does this offend you ? What, and if ye shall see the 
son of man ascend up where he was before. It is the spirit 
that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words that 
I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.' Both 
these things, the flesh and the spirit, he said respecting 
himself; and he distinguishes the spirit from the flesh, in 
order to teach men that his words were not carnal but spiri- 
tual ; for to how many persons, think you, could his body 
have been literally food, so as to be food for the whole 
world ? In order to turn away their minds from carnal 
thoughts, and that they might learn that the flesh that 
he would give them, was heavenly and spiritual food, he on 
this account mentioned the ascent of the son of man to 
heaven." 

Such was the interpretation of this celebrated saint, and 
I then read as follows, from Augustine. 

" Christ taught his disciples and said to them : " It is 
the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The 
words which I spake unto you, they are spirit and they 
are life/ as if He had said — understand spiritually what 

* The originals of this place from Athanasius, as also of the other 
fathers here cited, will be found in Usher's reply to Malone. 



322 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



i" have spoken. You are not about to eat this identical 
body which you see, nor to drink this identical blood, which 
they who crucify me will pour out. On the contrary, I 
have commanded a certain sacrament unto you, which shall 
vivify you if spiritually understood ; for though it must be 
celebrated visibly, yet it must be understood invisibly. 3 ' 
In Psa. 98. 

This was sufficient as to the opinion of this greatest of 
ail the fathers. I then read from Origen. 

" You must know that they are figures, which are written 
in the sacred volume, and therefore as spiritual and not as 
carnal persons, examine and understand what is said ; for if 
you understand them carnally they will be injurious to you, 
and will not nourish you. There is a letter that killeth 
him, icho does not interpret in a spiritual sense what is said, 
for if you follow according to the letter this saying, ' Un- 
less ye eat my flesh and drink my blood,' it is a letter that 
killeth." — In Levit. horn. 7. 

Having read these several extracts, I remarked that they 
shewed very clearly that these fathers and saints of the 
primitive church adopted the figurative and not the literal 
interpretation of this discourse of our Lord; — that they 
adopted the interpretation which Protestants give, and 
rejected that which Romanists give, to this remarkable 
chapter. 

She merely said, in reply to this, that she believed that 
in the writings of these very fathers and saints there were 
passages which gave the opposite interpretation, agreeing 
altogether with the church of Rome ; — that she had seen 
such passages often quoted in books ; but that, of course, 
she could not be expected to be able to argue on that point. 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 



323 



She was sure, however, that her priest could easily satisfy 
me on the subject. 

I replied that I certainly could not expect her to be 
familiar with writers whose works were all either Greek or 
Latin ; but that, if these writers wrote these passages which 
I had cited, and also wrote those passages, directly opposite 
to which she alluded, it only proved that they were very 
inconsistent men ; — that these fathers and saints, as they 
were called, were very inconsistent Christians thus to write 
on both sides, and therefore were scarcely fit persons to 
govern us in our interpretation of the Scriptures. I added 
pleasantly, that her creed contained a clause that she would 
" never interpret Scripture otherwise than according to the 
unanimous interpretations of the ancient fathers ; " and that 
the Council of Trent had expressly acknowledged that, as 
to the purport of this sixth chapter of St. John, the ancient 
fathers are not unanimous ! 

She took this in very good part, smiling pleasantly at it, so 
I felt I could go a step further. I reminded her that in our 
former conversation she had argued that our Lord's allusion 
to His ascension was in order to remove the doubts of His 
hearers — that when they should witness the wonder of His 
ascension they need no longer doubt the wonder of tran- 
substantiation. She assented to this ; and I then reminded 
her that I had argued on the other hand, that He had 
alluded to His ascension in order to show them that they 
ought not to understand His words in a literal sense ; for 
that when He would ascend to heaven and sit enthroned 
there and be their Priest and Advocate and Mediator, then 
they could not have Him bodily on earth, to be literally 
and substantially eating His body and drinking His blood. 



324 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



This, I said, was my argument and explanation of this 
allusion. And now, I added, that Saint Augustine was 
my authority for this argument. He says : — 

" Oar Lord answers — 'Doth this offend you? ' I said, 
I would give you my Flesh to eat, and my Blood to drink, 
does it offend you ? ' What and if you shall see the Son 
of Man ascend up where He was before.' What is the 
meaning of this ? By this He explains what they knew not, 
and lays open the reason of their being offended, for they 
imagined that He would give to them His body, and there- 
fore He said He would ascend to heaven entire. When you 
shall see the Son of Man ascend into heaven, then you will see 
certainly, that he gives not his body in the way you imagine. 
' It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, 
the words that I spake unto you, they are spirit, and they are 
life ? ' What is the meaning of this, c they are spirit and they 
are life ? ' That they are to be understood spiritually. Dost thou 
understand them spiritually, then they are spirit and life ? 
Dost thou understand then carnally, then, though they are 
spirit and life, yet they are not so to thee," in Joh. Tract 27. 

Again, St. Augustine says — 

" Some of his disciples, yet not all, but very many, were 
offended, saying one to another, * This is a hard saying; who 
can hear it ? ' Now, when our Lord perceived this, and 
heard their murmurings and thoughts, He answers them 
in order that they might understand that He had heard 
them, and that they might cease from such thoughts, but 
what was His answer ? ' Doth this offend you ? ' what and 
if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was 
before.' Now, what does He mean by these words, — f doth 
this offend you ? ' Do you imagine that I shall make parts of 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 325 



this my body which you see, and that I shall take my members 
to pieces, to give them to you ? ' What, and if you shall see 
the Son of Man ascend up where he was before.' It is 
certain, that he who has ascended whole, cannot be eaten." 
De Verb. Apos. Serrao 2. 

On reading these, which certainly surprised my antago- 
nist, 1 said, that there could be no doubt as to the meaning 
of this celebrated Father and Saint ; he explained the allu- 
sion to the ascension, as I had done, and thus this argument 
against transubstantiation is an argument invented by our 
Lord himself, and urged by him against transubstantiation. 
It is not an inference drawn from his words, but is an 
argument divinely formed, and divinelg urged by our Lord 
himself; and it simply is, that instead of interpreting his 
words of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood in a literal 
sense, they should see that the thing was an impossibility, 
for as He was to ascend bodily to heaven, so they could 
not have him to eat bodily upon earth.* 

I must do my fair opponent the justice to say, that she 
bore all this with great patience, she listened with the 
closest attention — shewed she fully saw and comprehended 
my meaning — made some just and natural comments, but 
made no effort to weaken the force of my argument. She was 
evidently unprepared for such a mass of evidence, and very 
frankly acknowledged her inability to answer it, farther than 
by saying, that there were other reasons operating on her 
mind, which forced her to an opposite interpretation of our 

* It will be seen that this argument is a full justification of the note or 
rubric, appended to the end of the Communion Service in the Common 
Prayer. Christ's human body being literally in heaven, cannot be liter- 
ally on earth. By his Spirit he is everywhere. 



326 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Lord's discourse ; she said that she had read much, and 
argued much on it, and her opinion was fully formed, and 
could not be easily changed, and certainly not by anything 
I had offered, though she admitted it was very new and 
very interesting ; but, she added gently and feelingly, that 
she often felt that she was right, when she could not 
prove it. 

The earnestness, simplicity, and sincerity of her manner, 
in saying this, could not be lost upon me : I fully appreciated 
it, and in a very few minutes we were established mutually 
in each other's confidence ; differing widely as the poles in 
our views, we yet felt that we could speak fully and frankly 
to each other, and I resolved to avail myself of it ; so after a 
short conversation on the importance of true religiousness, 
and of nobly and faithfully living on Christ, and living for 
Christ, I took occasion to revert to our original subject, 
and said, that I apprehended she had not considered the 
discourse of our Lord as a whole, and had perhaps only 
seen the use that had been made of the particular place she 
had quoted, about eating the flesh and drinking the blood. 

She said at once, that she was intimately acquainted with 
the whole chapter, but habitually took a totally different 
view of it from me. 

I asked her, whether she believed the flesh and blood of 
His body, which were supposed to be eaten and drank, were 
the body that was born of the Virgin Mary. I added, that 
I took for granted, that she did so believe, because the 
catechism of the Council of Trent said, it was " the real 
body of Christ, the sa?ne that was born of the Virgin, and 
sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is contained 
in the sacrament." chap. iv. ques. 26. 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 327 



She answered, that of course she believed this, because 
he had no other but that which was of the substance of his 
mother, born in the world. His divine nature, his godhead 
was from heaven ; but His human nature, His manhood, 
was from earth ; His flesh and blood which belonged to 
His manhood, to His human body, was of course born of 
the Blessed Virgin. Why, she asked enquiringly, should 
you ask such a question ? 

I could not but enjoy her simplicity, and if we were not 
established in mutual confidence, I could hardly have had 
it in my heart, to go on with my argument ; but I felt she 
would receive it kindly from me. I said, that her answer, 
so clear, and decisive to my simple question, cut up her in- 
terpretation of this discourse in the vith of St. John by the 
very roots, for our Lord is speaking throughout it, not of 
that which He received from the Virgin Mary — not of that 
which came from earth or belonged to earth, but only of 
that which came down from heaven, He says, t: My Father 
giveth you the true bread from heaven, for the bread of God 
is he which cometh down from heaven" verse 33. This 
could not be the body of flesh and blood he received from 
the Virgin Mary. Again He says, "I came down from 
heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that 
sent me," verse 38. This was not His human flesh and 
blood, which came from earth. Again, " the Jews mur- 
mured at him, because He said, I am the bread which came 
down from heaven." And they said, — how is it then He saith, 
" I came down from heaven?" verse 41. Again He said 
himself. "This is the bread that cometh down from heaven, 
that a man may eat thereof and not die. I am the living 
bread which came down from heaven" verse 50. He is thus 



328 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



speaking throughout this whole discourse, not of the body 
of manhood, the flesh and blood which He received from 
the human nature of His mother, and which was from earth ; 
but of that which came down from heaven, and which there- 
fore could not be His literal flesh and blood ; and that this 
was His meaning, when He spoke of eating His flesh and 
drinking His blood, is placed beyond doubt, by His saying 
in the very next verse, " this is that bread which came down 
from heaven," v. 58. Throughout the whole discourse, he 
is speaking of His divine love, manifested in his coming 
down from heaven for our salvation. It was His divine na- 
ture, coming down from heaven, and taking our nature for 
us. It was our faith in this — our feeding on this — our 
living on this as on flesh and blood, that is the very life of 
the soul; " I am," said He, "the Bread of Life, he that 
cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on 
me, shall never thirst," verse 35. The promise of never 
hungering, and never thirsting is made to those, who be- 
lieve in him, and come to him. And this is just the pro- 
mise to those, who eat His flesh and drink His blood ; shew- 
ing that these simply mean feeding on Him, and living on 
Him by faith. The only difficulty in the whole discourse, 
arises from not considering the figure which led to it. Our 
Lord charged the Jews with following Him, that they 
might again be fed by a miracle of loaves and of fishes as 
before : " Verily, verily I say unto you, ye seek me, not be- 
cause ye saw the miracles, but because you did eat of the 
loaves and were filled, Labour not for the meat that perish- 
eth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, 
which the Son of Man shall give unto you," verse 26. This 
verse commenced the discourse, it forms the key-note which 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 329 



explains the whole, as shewing the scope and reason of His 
using the figure of eating and drinking when He meant 
coming to Him and believing on Him. 

She made no remark upon all this ; she only smiled and 
shook her head incredulously ; she evidently had no answer 
for it. Very little more of importance was said, and we 
parted. 

On my return to the house, where I was staying, I found 
that a young man of some property and influence in the 
neighbourhood was to join us at dinner. He was a Roman 
Catholic, who was very much disposed to leave the church 
of Rome, and with whom I had already had several conver- 
sations on the subject. 

In the evening, I related to him and my friends the pur- 
port of my conversation with my fair opponent ; he was a 
good deal amused as well as interested, and as one thing 
led to another, I said there were other particulars in this 
discourse, that bore heavily against the interpretation of the 
church of Rome. 

The first was derived from the words on which she 
dwells so much, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of 
Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you : whoso 
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and 
I will raise him up at the last day." It is plain, that if we 
are to interpret these words strictly and literally, then the 
drinking his blood is as necessary as the eating his flesh ; the 
receiving the cup, is as necessary as receiving the host in 
the sacrament. This touches the practice of the church of 
Rome, which gives the consecrated bread to the communi- 
cant, but refuses the cup ! Now, this language of our 
Lord implies, that the promise of eternal life is only for 



330 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



those who drink the blood as well as eat the bread, and that 
there can be no eternal life, for any who take the bread 
without also taking the cup. If then this language is to be 
applied to the sacrament at all, then in the church of Rome, 
by withholding the cup, they deprive the people of all the 
blessings promised to the communicant. 

The second consideration is, that if we are to take this 
discourse strictly and literally, it will prove the very con- 
verse of transubstantiation ; thus — if in the words, " this is 
my body," and " this is my blood/' the substantive verb 
" is," is to be interpreted as implying a change of the 
"this" into the "body" and into the "blood," then we 
have a parallel place in this discourse, where our Lord says 
" I am the bread " and the substantive verb " am " must 
imply a similar change ; and thus, if the words " this is my 
body," imply that the bread is changed into the body of 
Christ, then the words, " I am the bread " must imply that 
Christ is changed into bread ! And thus if one place proves 
transubstantiation, the other will prove the converse of it, 
— one proving that bread can be changed into Christ, and 
the other proving that Christ can be changed into bread ! 

There is another consideration that has great weight with 
many minds ; it is this ; if we apply this discourse of eating 
the flesh, and drinking the blood to the sacrament of the 
Lord's Supper, we must pronounce that it is necessary — 
absolutely necessary to salvation, so necessary, as that no 
man can be saved without it, for it is said, "Except ye eat 
— ye have no life in you." And again, it involves the 
equally objectionable position, that whoever receives the 
sacrament, is certainly saved, for it is said, <c He that eateth 
— hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last 



THE SIXTH CHAPTER OP ST. JOHN. 331 



day." And thus no one can be saved without it, and no 
one with it can be lost ! These strange results flow from 
interpreting these words as referring to the sacrament of the 
Lord's Supper. Their true intention is, to teach us that 
we are to believe on Him whose love for poor sinners 
brought him down from heaven — whose love led him to be- 
come incarnate — whose love led him to die for us ; and that 
the life of our souls, is our living and feeding by faith on 
these blessed truths. This is the true receiving Christ, and 
feeding on Christ. 

I can feel for the members of the church of Rome who 
cling to this discourse of our Lord ; not that it in anywise 
gives them the least ground for their favourite dogma : but 
they are so habituated to look on it as the great support of 
the system, that the least doubt of its applicability is like an 
earthquake shaking the foundations on which they stand ; 
and yet a mind calm and unprejudiced, that will examine it 
without passion or party, will be led irresistibly to the con- 
clusion, that the subject-matter of our Lord's discourse is 
very different indeed from the institution of a sacrament. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



A TOUNG CONVERT THE WORDS, " THIS IS MY BODY, BLOOD," 

WHETHER LITERAL OR FIGURATIVE EXAMPLES TO ILLUSTRATE 

THIS -WHETHER OUR LORD GAVE A NEW AND MIRACULOUS 

POWER TO THE PRIESTHOOD VARIOUS MEANINGS IMPOSED ON 

THESE WORDS BY ROMISH WRITERS — SUBSEQUENT HTSTORY OF 
THE YOUNG CONVERT. 

About ten or twelve years before I came to reside at , 

a Roman Catholic family had emigrated to America. They 
constituted a large party. They were the relics of an old 
family, once possessed of considerable influence and exten- 
sive property. Indeed their territorial rights were at one 
time very extensive. But that common bane of Ireland, 
waste and extravagance and dissipation and inattention to 
the commonest maxims of prudence, necessitated the gra- 
dual sale of one estate after another, till each generation 
became poorer than the preceding. And at last the repre- 
sentative of the family, being a man of considerable energy 
and good sense, and having many children, resolved to 
emigrate to the back woods of the far west. He took all 
his family w T ith him except one little girl, some five or six 
years of age. And she was left with an Aunt, who was 
possesed of some little wreck of former fortune, and who 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



333 



was attached to the little niece and promised to provide for 
her. 

The Aunt was, like her ancestors, a member of the church 
of Rome, by inheritance as well as by conviction. And she 
brought up her little charge, truly, religiously, affectionately, 
to the best of her judgment. When I commenced my 
duties in the parish, the niece might have been some fifteen 
or sixteen years of age. And it was not till a year or two 
afterwards, that I observed her in my schoolroom on one or 
two occasions of my evening lectures. Shortly afterwards 
I learned that she had been induced by one of her young 
companions to read the Scriptures, — that she had been very 
strongly affected in reading them, — that she had asked to 
be allowed to accompany a young Protestant companion to 
my lectures, — that she had attended several of them, — and 
finally that she was in everything but name, a Protestant. 

She was a person of very preposessing appearance, gentle, 
timid, and retiring, but a universal favorite among her 
equals in age and station, that is, among the class of inferior 
shopkeepers in a country town. The recognised and tra- 
ditionary antiquity of her descent gave her a sort of claim 
to respect, never denied among the peasantry. 

The history of this young and interesting person, like the 
history of her unfortunate family, is the tale of too many in 
the sister island. I shall narrate all that is necessary to my 
present purpose. 

I had never spoken to her; but having learned the state of 
her mind and feelings, I gave my advice to others who had 
access to her and ample opportunities of speaking with her. 
They carefully attended to my advice, and one evening as 
I visited one of my sick people with a view to reading the 



834 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Scriptures and praying with her, I observed her enter and 
seat herself m with others to listen. As this is a very frequent 
custom among the peasantry, even among the Roman 
Catholics, there was nothing very remarkable in it, so after 
some conversation, as was my usual way with the sick, I 
read a chapter and proceeded to comment on it, as in a 
cottage lecture. 

Our subject led me to speak of the love of the Saviour, — 
a love shown in leaving the heavens, — in walking our fallen 
world, — dwelling among fallen man as partaking himself of 
our fallen manhood,— suffering, bleeding, and dying for us, 
— and now as our High Priest in the heavens, interceding 
for us. I was led to remark on His leaving in the Holy 
Scriptures a perpetual record of His love, — on His sending 
His Spirit to make us fit for the enjoyment of His pro- 
mises, — and on His instituting the Lord's Supper as a 
memorial of His dying love ; I dwelt on this last as designed 
by Him as a memorial feast or occasion in which His loving 
and believing people might often meet together, and pray 
together, and speak together of His wonderful love. There, 
I said, we can sit and kneel together, and we can eat of the 
bread in remembrance of His having given His body to be 
broken unto death upon the cross, as a substitute, as a 
vicarious offering for us, and we can drink the wine, in 
memory of His having shed His blood unto death at Calvary 
to make atonement for us. It was thus a dying legacy in 
the enjoyment of which we show to each other our belief 
that our forgiveness, justification, salvation are derived to 
us, through the Cross of Calvary. I was endeavouring to 
press on my hearers that the graces and blessings for the 
communicants were not through the mere elements or 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



335 



material things themselves, but altogether through the 
faith developed in the tone, spirit, and pray erf illness of their 
souls when thus engaged. 

While thus expressing myself and drawing to a conclu- 
sion without the least allusion to anything of a controver- 
sial nature, I was asked by an elderly man who sat beside 
me, to explain the words "This is my body," and "This is 
my blood;" he added that Roman Catholics understood these 
words strictly and literally, and thought that all the graces 
and blessings of the Sacrament were derived to us through 
the consecrated and transubstantiated elements. And that 
they did not depend on the belief or unbelief of the commu- 
nicant. They depended on the material things, external to 
them, and not on the things that were internal. He said, 
that he asked the explanation for the sake of others who 
were present, as well as for himself. 

I gladly acceded to his proposal, and said, that I would 
endeavour to explain the meaning and intention of the 
words of our Lord. And that I would do so the more 
readily, as I believed they were often much misunderstood. 
We believe that our Lord designed the sacrament to be a 
commemoration or memorial of His death on the cross. 
He said, on giving the bread, " Do this in remembrance of 
Me." And again, on giving the wine, He said, " Do this 
in remembrance of Me." So that we have His own words 
for believing this sacrament to be a commemoration or 
memorial of His death on the cross. He took bread and 
breaking it, gave it to the disciples, and said, " Take, eat, 
this is My body ; " and then giving the wine, He said, 
" Drink ye all of it, for this is My blood of the New Tes- 
tament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." 



336 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



We believe, that as He designed this to be a remembrance 
of His great love in dying for us, and in remembrance of 
the blessings which we have obtained by His death, so 
when He said, " Take eat, this is My body," He meant to 
convey, that we were to partake of that sacrament, receiv- 
ing the bread as the memorial of His body that was broken 
on the cross ; and when He said, " Drink ye all of this, for 
this is my blood," He meant to convey that we were to 
partake of that wine as the memorial of His blood that 
was shed on the cross. This we believe to be the true and 
natural interpretation of His words. It is surrounded with 
no difficulties, it presents to us nothing marvellous, it in- 
volves no contradictions, it is encompassed with no absur- 
dities ; it is simple and natural, conformable to the usages 
of language, and in accordance with the customs of the 
Jews. 

This mode of interpretation is conformable to the usages 
of language. There is nothing more frequent than the 
habit of calling the memorial or representation of a thing 
by the very name of the thing of which it is a token. If 
we enter St. Paul's Cathedral, or if we enter Westminster 
Abbey, we are arrested by the sight of many memorial 
statues. We look on one, and we say, " This is Nelson;" 
and on another, and we say, " This is Marlborough." We 
do not mean to convey that those marble statues are literally 
changed or transubstantiated into Nelson or Marlborough, 
but only that they are the memorials or representations of 
those celebrated heroes. If we visit the galleries of 
Windsor Castle, or of Hampton Court, or our National 
Gallery, as our eyes wander from picture to picture, and 
we are told that " This is Wellington," or " This is Prince 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



337 



Albert," or "This is the Queen," * we are not so reft of all 
reason as to suppose that our informant intends to convey, 
that these lifeless pictures are really changed or transub- 
stantiated into the Duke, or the Prince, or the Queen ; but 
only that they are the representations of these remarkable 
persons. If we take a handful of the coin of the realm, 
and look upon the impressions that are stamped on them, 
we say of one, " This is George III," — of a second, " This 
is George IV." — of a third, " This is William IV," — of ano- 
ther, " This is Victoria ; " — and we arenever understood as 
meaning to convey, that these pieces of copper, or silver, 
or gold are literally changed or transubstantiated into these 
royal persons. The youngest child is incapable of so gross 
a mistake, for from earliest years we are all familiar with 
that mode of expression. And even the members of the 
church of Rome themselves, when they look on images or 
pictures of Mary, or of Peter, or of Christ, familiarly sav 
of them, " This is the Virgin," or " This is Peter," or 
" This is Christ," merely meaning to convey that they are 
the representations or memorials of them : for they, as 
well as ourselves, are familiar with that method of expres- 
sion, which calls the representation or memorial by the name 
of that, of which it is a representation or memorial. 

That this method of expression was as familiar with the 
sacred writers as with ourselves, can easily be demonstrated. 
As clear and beautiful an instance as we could possibly 
desire, occurs in the history of Abraham. We read — "This 
is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you 

* These are not the illustrations originally given. They were names of 
persons familiar in the neighbourhood, and these are given in their stead, 
to make the illustration more generally intelligible. 

Q 



338 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



and thy seed after thee ; every man child among you shall 
be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your 
foreskin ; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt Me 
and you." — Gen. xvii. 10, 11. It is here said of circum- 
cision in one verse — " This is my covenant and then in 
the next verse it is said — " It shall be a token of the cove- 
nant" So that we have here evidence of the mode in 
which such expressions are to be interpreted, — the token 
of the covenant being called the covenant itself. The 
reiteration of this method of expression is so constant in 
every part of the sacred Volume, that the difficulty is in 
making a selection. "These bones are the whole house of 
Israel." — Ezek. xxxvii. 11. "The rough goat is the 
King of Grecia." — Dan. viii. 21. Although it is evident 
these bones were not the reality, but the emblem of the 
house of Israel ; and this goat was not substantially, but 
only in the way of representation, the king of Greece. 
And in the same way, when our Lord says, " I am the 
Door," and " I am the Vine, and ye are the branches ; " it 
is self-evident, that He could not possibly have meant, that 
He was literally, truly, substantially changed or transub- 
stantiated into a door or a vine, or that His people are 
transubstantiated into the branches of a vine. The same 
remark will apply, when the apostle says. "That Rock was 
Christ," and " This Hagar is Mount Sinai." The true, the 
simple, the natural interpretation of these and of all similar 
expressions is, that, being figurative, according to the 
analogies of every language in the world, the sign or 
emblem or memorial is called by the name of that, of 
which it is the sign or emblem or memorial. And there- 
fore, we argue, that when our Lord gave the bread to His 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



339 



disciples, intending- the Lord's Supper as a memorial of 
His death on the cross, and said, " This is My body," He 
meant to convey, that it was to be the memorial or emblem 
of His body broken on the cross ; and that when He gave 
the cup, and said, " This is My blood," He designed to 
convey that it was to be the memorial or emblem of that 
blood, which was shed on the cross ; and that, partaking of 
these in the face of the church, every Christian would 
show his belief in the atonement, satisfaction, propitiation, 
wrought in the death on Calvary, and that he looked to it 
and depended on it for redemption, forgiveness, salvation 
and glory. 

My aged friend, who was a very good old man, expressed 
himself perfectly satisfied with my explanation, but said, 
that there was a question often asked by his Roman Catho- 
lic neighbours, and as some few of them where present, he 
would like me for their sakes to notice it. The question 
was — whether our Lord had not given to the clergy of his 
church a power to turn — to change the bread and the wine 
into the body and blood and soul and divinity of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. There were several indications among those 
present, approving of the proposal that I should touch on 
this question. 

I replied, expressing my readiness to answer that or any 
other enquiry to the best of the light that God had given 
me. I therefore said, that so extraordinary a thing as 
transubstantiation — so marvellous a miracle as turning a 
piece of bread into God — so great a miracle, and one so 
different from anything and everything the world has ever 
heard, and so great that it is, if true, the greatest miracle 
the world has ever seen — ought to be proveable by evidence 
Q 2 



340 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



more clear and decisive, than a mere expression capable of a 
figurative interpretation, as all must admit was the case with 
the words of our Lord. For though the advocates of Rome 
contend that the words ought to be explained in a literal 
sense, yet I have found many an opponent candidly admit, 
that they are capable of being explained in a figurative sense. 
And my argument has then been, that so extraordinary a 
doctrine as transubstantiation cannot be regarded as proved, 
when it is made to depend upon a particular interpretation of 
a phrase, which it is admitted is capable of a totally different 
interpretation. Having thus far weakened all dependence 
on this, I have argued farther, that even if we adopted the 
literal interpretation of our Lord's words — even if we adop- 
ted the notion, that our Lord did truly, literally, transub- 
stantiate the bread into His own " body and blood and soul 
and divinity and bones and nerves," — even if we adopted 
this notion, it yet would not serve the purpose of the church 
of Rome ; because, it would by no means follow, that be- 
cause Christ being God was able to perform the miracle, 
every Roman priest also should therefore be able to perform 
it. He walked on the waters : His having done so, is no 
proof that the Roman priests can now w T alk upon the waters. 
He stilled the winds and the waves : His having done so, 
is no proof that the Romish priests can now still the winds 
and the waves. He multiplied the five loaves and fishes, 
so as to feed thousands : His having done so, is no proof 
that the Romish priests can now multiply food, so as to 
supply the wants of thousands. He healed the sick, the 
blind, the deaf, the maimed, the leprous, and He raised the 
dead ; His having wrought these miracles, by His divine 
power, is no proof that the Romish priests can now perform 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



■341 



similar miracles. And therefore we argue, that even if we 
suppose — which we do only for the sake of the argument — 
that our Lord did work a miraculous transubstantiation of 
the bread into God, His having wrought such a miracle by 
His Divine power, is no proof that the Romish priests can 
now work the same miracle. 

When I concluded this, one of the Roman Catholics sug- 
gested in a very modest and courteous way, that when our 
Lord said " Do this in remembrance of me," He commanded 
them to do the same thing that He did, and of course must 
be supposed to have given them power to do it. Now if 
our Lord transubstantiated the bread and wine into His own 
body and blood and soul and divinity, as the church believes ; 
then He must have given His apostles power to do the same 
in remembrance of Him. 

I said that this text — these words, had a heavier burden 
to bear in the church of Rome, than perhaps any other 
words in the Holy Scriptures ; for if we ask, what authoritv 
they have for administering this sacrament ? They answer 
— our Lord said " Do this." When we ask authority for 
the laity receiving the sacrament they answer — our Lord 
said " Do this : " when we enquire when the apostles were 
ordained priests, they answer — our Lord said " Do this." 
When we ask for evidence that the sacrament is a propitia- 
tory or atoning sacrifice, they answer — our Lord said " Do 
this." When we ask for their authority for saying that the 
priests of Rome can change the bread and wine into their 
Saviour and their God, they answer — our Lord said " Do 
this." And thus these two little words mean sometimes 
" administer this," sometimes " receive this," sometimes 
" I ordain you priest," sometimes " offer this sacrifice of 



342 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



the mass/' and sometimes " transubstantiate this." Cer- 
tainly no two little words ever had so much or so many 
meanings ! Now, I added, it seems to me simply to mean 
that as He and His apostles, His chosen and beloved disci- 
ples, were then solemnly sitting and eating together in holy 
communion, love and brotherhood, — so in after ages, when 
he was gone from them, they should still meet together and 
eat and drink together, in holy love and fellowship and 
brotherhood, in remembrance of all his love in dying for 
them — in remembrance of His sufferings and death for their 
salvation ; and thus these words have no distinctly doctrinal 
or controversial intention ; but simply desire all His loving 
and believing people to hold such holy and brotherly com- 
munion together in remembrance of Him : — " Do this in 
remembrance of me." 

I availed myself of the opportunity afforded me by this 
to express myself upon the importance of Christians culti- 
vating a tone of mind and a habit of feeling, that should be 
characterised by kindness and benevolence, charity and love ; 
each of us in all our conduct showing that however we are 
engaged, we cherish a remembrance of Him who loved us, 
and gave Himself for us. We then all knelt and prayed 
together, and soon after we separated. 

On my way home, I learned, what indeed I had suspected, 
that the young person, to whom I had already referred, was 
the one at whose wish the question was proposed to me, as 
to the meaning of our Lord's words. It was the first time 
she had ever heard anything from me in reference to the 
church of Rome or any controversial subject. And it led to 
much communication afterwards, till she openly avowed 
herself a Protestant, and became a regular attendant at my 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



343 



evening lectures in the school-room. She so far complied 
with the wishes of her aunt, that she did not attend the 
services of the church. 

Her sufferings for the truth's sake, which she loved with 
all the fervour of youth and first love, soon commenced. 
Her aunt threatened and the priest argued. She bore the 
threats of one she very dearly loved, with a sweetness and 
meekness, and at the same time with a depth of affection 
that was as a knife in her very heart ; but she replied to 
the arguments of the priest always by some appropriate 
passage of the Scriptures, and ever with a quiet and gentle 
spirit. Indeed, it was not her nature to do otherwise with 
any one or under any circumstances. The result was a 
system of slow but ceaseless persecution, originating, no 
doubt, in the kindest intentions, and with a desire to save 
her soul by bringing her back to what they fondly believed 
the only true church ; but though thus originating, it was 
not the less bitter and unrelenting. At first she was com- 
pelled to long fasts, by her aunt denying her the accus- 
tomed food. Then she withheld her clothes so as to prevent 
her attending the lectures. She even went so far as to 
take from her her shoes and stockings. And finally, she 
turned her bodily out of doors, refusing any longer to sup- 
port her. 

It will of course be easier to imagine than to describe the 
state of suffering affliction which that young creature, 
about eighteen or nineteen years of age, was thus already 
called to endure. Separated from her father and mother, 
from her brothers and sisters, by the broad Atlantic — left 
wholly destitute as the poorest of the children of poverty — 
wholly unconscious where she could turn for a roof to 



344 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



shelter her or a meal to satisfy her hunger — she could but 
sit down and weep, and she did weep in a very agony of 
tears. And then, after a while, she calmed her heart and 
turned to Him who desired her to cast all her care upon 
Him, knowing that He careth for us. She remembered, 
as she afterwards told me, the words of the Psalmist, the 
first she had ever heard me explain, " I have been young 
and now am old, yet never saw I the righteous forsaken or 
his seed begging their bread." These words, she after- 
wards told me, to use her own beautiful idea, were like the 
tree in a sunny evening after a day of rain ; the breath of 
evening shakes the leaves and all becomes a shower of 
sparkling diamonds. She felt assured that God would raise 
up some means of deliverance. And as she comforted her- 
self with these thoughts, one of my poor people, a very 
poor but very pious woman, saw her, heard her tale, knew 
her former history, and took her to her own home, and told 
her she should have a home with her own three daughters 
as long as she needed it. 

All this was immediately communicated to me. Every 
thing was done to mitigate the feelings of the aunt. She 
would not give way unless on the simple condition of her 
returning to the church of Rome. And thus this poor 
young creature was flung destitute upon the world. 

This girl, now reduced from comparative independence 
and respectability of station, to the position of one of the 
poorest peasant-girls of the place, was obliged to go with- 
out shoes to her feet, or a bonnet on her head, or any one 
of the comforts in which she had been reared, and to which 
she had been accustomed. Those with whom she lived 
were very poor, and very kind ; but they and she were very 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



345 



much dressed alike ; and although I made arrangements 
unknown to her, by which she should be no additional ex- 
pense to this Christian family, yet I felt it was not advisable 
for me to do more than was absolutely necessary for her 
subsistence, until such time as she could amply prove to 
the world the sincerity of her profession by suffering for it, 
and until there could be no room in the mind of any one 
for impeaching the motives of her conversion. Those who 
are acquainted with the country will appreciate this. 

She now regularly attended the parish-church and the 
evening lectures at the school -room, and seemed, in her 
deep poverty, more happy in her inner life than she had 
ever been ; but such was the sad and painful and disgrace- 
ful state of the country — such was the accursed spirit of 
malignity and persecution — and such was the lukewarm- 
ness of the magistracy, and unwillingness to protect on the 
part of the police, in cases where religion was concerned — 
that every evening, as my little congregation issued from 
the school-room, there was a band of men and women 
ranged in two lines from the doorway, and the moment 
this poor young creature appeared, they all raised a yelling, 
a hooting, and jeering against her, calling her every oppro- 
brious and contemptuous name for leaving the church of 
Rome. Nothing could have saved her from personal vio- 
lence but the steadiness and determination of some of the 
men of my congregation, who, though they could not 
protect her from insolence, were well able to protect her 
from violence. This continued for many, many weeks, till 
the people got tired of persecuting her, when they saw that 
they failed to influence her, and when the priest gave up all 
hope of reclaiming her. 

Q 5 



346 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



I had now some breathing-time. I could consider what 
was best to be done for her, and had consulted with some 
whose judgment was of value. She had proved her sin- 
cerity by her stedfast suffering for the love of the truth. 
She had disproved, in her continued poverty, all insinua- 
tions as to her being bribed to abandon her former faith. 
She had exhibited a steady, gentle, sweet, industrious, 
humble spirit through all her trials : and it now became 
the duty of Christian persons to consider what was best to 
be done for her ultimate provision. 

While we thought of these things, with some doubts and 
misgivings and perplexities, there was an unseen hand in- 
terposing in a mysterious way. 

I was sitting and reading one morning in my apartments, 
when a man was announced and entered. After a pause, 
and rather rough kind of salutation, he sat down and I had 
time to examine his appearance. He was very much like the 
skipper of a merchantman, — at least like some I had seen 
in my sea-going years. He was an open, free, frank, and 
rough person, homely as a farmer, and fearless as a sailor. 
But I could see there was something at his heart : for with 
all his free manners there was something like a tear start- 
ing to his eyes. He was to me a total stranger, but I felt 
disposed to like him, and asked him his name and business. 

My name, he said, is , from the state of Ohio. 

I instantly recognized the name, and asked whether it 
was not he who had emigrated from that parish so many 
years before, and had left one daughter behind ? 

He said he was the very man. He had lost his wife and 
was now come back to the old country to recover his child 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



347 



and bring her to America, to keep house for him, as his 
other children were all married and settled there. 

Here a God of love and mercy Himself opened out to me 
the best and fittest provision for the young creature. Her 
father was come for her ! 

After a few words, he told me he had arrived only that 
morning, and went immediately to see his child at her 
aunt's. He expressed himself shocked and indignant at 
the conduct of her aunt in turning her out upon the streets, 
exposed to poverty, destitution, and temptation ; — a young 
girl who was intrusted to her on the promise to love, 
cherish, and provide for her ; and for no misconduct, no 
vice, no crime, but merely because she had changed her re- 
ligion. He then turned to me, and with deep and unmis- 
takeable emotion, with a fearfulness in his manner, as if 
afraid of my answer, and yet with all the yearning anxiety 
of a father's heart, he asked me, earnestly, what was his 
child's character, and what was become of her. 

I told him in a few words. 

I shall never forget the effect of my words. That strong, 
rough man was subdued, melted into tears, and sobbed and 
wept like a little child. It was the joy and blessedness of 
a parent's heart scattering all the fears and anxieties that 
had oppressed him. He seemed choking for words to ex- 
press his thankfulness ; and it was some time before he was 
able to ask me to bring him to his child. 

I felt, however, I had a duty to perform to the child as 
well as to the father ; and I hoped that in his then state of 
feeling he might be disposed to make a solemn promise not 
to interfere with the adopted religion of his daughter. I 



348 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



knew he was a Romanist, and I feared his unduly interfer- 
ing- with her religious convictions. I therefore expressed 
myself frankly and at once. I told him the circumstances 
of her conversion ; I described her piety and religiousness ; 
I expressed myself strongly as to her good conduct and 
character ; and finally said, that I felt almost unwilling to 
place her, a Protestant, in the hands of him a Romanist. 

He smiled good-humouredly, and said, that I need have 
no fear on that head. In America no man interfered, or 
was allowed to interfere, with the religion of another. It 
was altogether different from what it was in his recollection 
in Ireland. This country, he said, in reference to Ireland, 
is a wretched, miserable, factious country, and the people 
are bigotted and priest-ridden, so that they cannot help 
themselves, or get out of their wretchedness ; as long as 
he had lived in it himself, he had not only found it so, but 
was himself a helpless, though unwilling, victim to the 
system. It was as much as a man's life was worth to leave 
the church of Rome ; for the faction of the priest was sure 
to do his bidding. But in America all was changed ; he felt 
as if the breathing the free air made him feel free himself, 
and entertain free feelings and free opinions. He cast 
aside all the party notions and factious ways he had recol- 
lected in this country ; and it was impossible in America for 
the priests to have the influence or the power to persecute 
and ill-treat those who leave them. Indeed so many, who 
were inveterate Roman Catholics, turn and leave them — so 
many read the scriptures — so many go to the Protestant 
worship and prayer and preaching, that it would be impos- 
sible to interfere with them. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



349 



I asked him then, how, if his child went out with him, 
how she would be provided in the way of public worship. 

He then stated what was very new to me, and certainly 
was extremely interesting. He said, that he could only 
speak of the country where he had himself settled, and 
which was very extensively settled all around him ; but he 
believed from what he heard of other districts, that it was 
by no means singular. There was no regular or established 
church of any kind, but clergymen of different churches used 
to visit the district periodically. One week we have the 
visit of a Church of England clergyman at the house of one 
settler, and then all the settlers assemble there, and we have 
the Church of England service ; the next week some Pres- 
byterian minister comes to the house of another settler, and 
then all the settlers in the neighbourhood come together 
there, and we have the Presbyterian prayers and preaching. 
On another week the Wesleyan minister arrives at the house 
of some one else, and we all assemble there, and we have 
Methodist praying and preaching. Then there is the Bap- 
tist minister ; and thus we have a great number of clergy- 
men, and we assemble very often at other houses and 
sometimes at other settlements. In this description he 
mentioned the names of the settlers and clergymen. 

So I asked him how he managed at his own house : — 
Had he a Roman Catholic priest ? 

He smiled, and said there were very few of them in the 
country, and that for himself and his family they never 
wished or cared to see one. He said he and his family 
acted like all the other settlers, they went wherever they 
had the preaching, and he felt that every one of the clergy- 
men, who thus visited them, was a good, earnest man, and 



350 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



he liked them better than any priests he had ever known, 
" and " turning 1 earnestly to me, he said, "my little girl 
shall always go with us to the meeting, if you have no 
objection, for all my children always do so." 

I could not but feel very thankful at hearing all this, I 
gave him my assent with all my heart, and I would not 
detain him a moment longer from his child. 

A few moments brought him to the house where she lived. 
It was a happy meeting for both parties ; I of course with- 
drew, but saw them the next day. The more I saw of the 
man, the more I liked him. There was an amount of honest 
purpose and right feeling, combined with common sense 
and energy of character that was very unusual ; and he 
presented in his own person, a fine illustration of what the 
character of the Irish might become, when once emancipated 
from the iron priestly domination which oppresses them. 
Within a very few days, he had his daughter well-dressed ; 
and they caused no small sensation in the place. In faith 
and hope and charity, as well as in prayer, we soon parted. 

The singular statement which he gave, as to the state of 
religious instruction in the remote settlement where he was 
located, seems to account very much for the religious 
change so remarkable among so many of the Roman Ca- 
tholics who have emigrated to America. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION.— II. 



AN ANECDOTE NARRATED BY A ROMANIST RESPECTING HIMSELF— 

THE ARGUMENT OF A PRIEST ANSWERED EXPLANATION OF OUR 

LORD'S USE OF HIS PECULIAR LANGUAGE THE FEAST OF THE 

PASSOVER EXPLAINS HIS WORDS THE ARGUMENT AGAINST 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION FROM REASON DEFECT OF THIS THE 

ARGUMENT FROM THE BODILY SENSES, ILLUSTRATED BY AN 

ANECDOTE TRANSUBSTANTIAITON AND THE TRINITY CONTRASTED 

THE EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES, APPEALED TO AS INFALLIBLE 

ALWAYS APPEALED TO BY GOD HIMSELF IN ALL HIS REVELATION. 

The following conversation took place under unusual cir- 
cumstances. 

I had accepted an invitation to dinner. It was near the 
county town, and during the assizes. The larger portion of 
the Grand Jurors were present. After the usual amount of 
local politics had been discussed, we adjourned to the draw- 
ing-room. Many ladies were present. 

A Roman Catholic gentleman — a member of Parliament 
— drew me aside and after a few moments' conversation, 
narrated the following anecdote respecting himself. 

He had been in Dublin a few days before, and had been 
induced by the party with whom he was staying, to go one 
evening to the chapel in the to hear a controversial 



352 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



oration or lecture from a very celebrated Roman Catholic 
priest. There was a vast assembly, a large amount of ex- 
citement, and a very splendid display of oratory. He said 
it was more flashy, brilliant, piquant, than he liked for the 
pulpit, but it was very popular and very effective, it was 
not sufficiently calm, collective and argumentative for him, 
but that was perhaps the fault of his taste. It was on the 
whole a very able address. He said the subject was Tran- 
substantiation, and that the orator, when handling the words 
" This is my body " and " This is my blood," had paused, 
so as to cause an intense and profound silence, through the 
vast congregation, all watching, and as it were holding 
their breath, for him to proceed. At this moment he burst 
out into a passionate and most impressive tone, asking — 
' When the blessed Lord said " This is my body," how dare 
the Protestants to say, it is not his body ? When the 
Blessed Lord said again, " This is my blood," how dare the 
Protestants to say it is not his blood ? They are always 
talking about the Scriptures, and they are always telling us 
that the Scriptures, the whole Scriptures and nothing but 
the Scriptures, will satisfy them, and yet here the Scrip- 
tures say, "This is my body," and "This is my blood," 
how dare these Protestants say, it is neither the one, nor 
the other, but must be explained in ?ome spiritual or figu- 
rative or mystical sense ? ' The Roman Catholic gentleman, 
who narrated this, said, it had an electrifying effect on the 
audience, — that for himself while he admired the oratory 
and the acting, he could not but think very lightly of the 
argument — that the next day he had dined at the house of 
a well-known Roman Catholic leader — that the priest of the 
preceding evening was one of the company, and that there 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



353 



was some conversation about the discourse, and especially 
about the passage already described. This Roman Catho- 
lic gentleman stated that he himself turned to the priest 
and said — When our Lord has said c I am the true vine,' 
how dare the Romanists to say he is not a vine ! When our 
Lord has said f I am a door/ how dare the Romanists to 
say he is not a door ? W T hen our Lord has said ' I am the 
Good Shepherd ' how dare the Romanists say he is not a 
shepherd ? And when the language of Scripture is so clear 
and plain, saying he is a door, and a vine, and a shepherd, 
how dare the Romanists to deny or contradict these words, 
and say they are to be explained in a spiritual or figurative 
sense ? He stated, that having said this to the priest before 
all the company, very much to their surprise, he asked him 
how he would answer such an argument from a Protestant, 
if urged in reply to his argument ? He added that the 
priest became thoroughly confused, and stammered a num- 
ber of things that had nothing to do with the question, 
though very much to the amusement of many of the com- 
pany, and especially of their host, whose keen, quick, twink- 
ling eye seemed thoroughly to enjoy this confusion of the 
priest. When he had concluded his anecdote, he asked me 
what I thought of his answer ? 

1 told him very frankly that I thought he gave as good 
a reply as such an argument would admit of — that the ar- 
gument itself was a mere popular clap-trap, and was best 
answered in the same way, — that Solomon had desired us 
to answer a fool according to his folly, and that in my 
judgment he had given precisely the kind of answer such 
an argument deserved. 

He then said, after a few more observations, that he 



354 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



thought that if priests and parsons would explain the lan- 
guage of the Scriptures, and tell their meaning and illustrate 
the reason for what they say, they would serve the cause 
infinitely more than by mere controversial arguments, which 
always appear to be too partizan — too much on one side-r-to 
influence cool and well-balanced judgments. 

I said that such was the usual course of the Protestant 
clergy in their ordinary ministrations. At their ordination, 
the Bible was placed by the bishop in their hands, with the 
solemn charge to preach the gospel. This was their duty 
— to preach the Scriptures. 

He replied, that I had mistaken his meaning — that what 
he had intended to convey was that an explanation of the 
phrases in Scripture — a fair, sensible exposition of them, 
was what would prove more useful than anything else. He 
would explain himself by an illustration. Our Lord said, 
( This is my body/ and ' This is my blood/ Roman Catho- 
lics explain these words literally . Protestants explain them 
figuratively. Now, what is wanted is some reason — some 
explanation why our Lord used those words instead of any 
other, and shewing why, if he meant anything beyond the 
very words themselves, he did not say more precisely what 
he meant. If he meant them figuratively especially, why 
did he not so express himself ? 

I replied at once, that his enquiry was perfectly just and 
legitimate ; — that the words our Lord used were precisely 
the words we should have expected Him to use, and the 
words, that of all others, were the most easy and the most 
likely to be understood in the circumstances under which 
they were spoken. The meaning of phrases and allusions 
always depends more or less on the circumstances under 



TR ANSUBST ANTI ATION . 



355 



which they were spoken. And in this case we should es- 
pecially consider the circumstances. This consideration 
has always satisfied my own judgment, and I felt sure it 
would satisfy his, if he allowed me to explain it. 

He most courteously begged me to proceed, for that it 
was a point in which he felt a great interest. 

I then said — It was when our Lord was eating the Pass- 
over with His disciples, that He instituted the sacrament. 
It will be recollected that the Passover was instituted to be 
a commemoration of the deliverance of the Israelites from 
the bondage of Egypt, through their being sprinkled with 
the blood of the Paschal lamb. It was when partaking of 
this festival for the last time with His disciples, that our 
Lord instituted the sacrament, to be a commemoration of 
the deliverance of His people from the bondage of sin, 
through their being sprinkled with His blood as " the 
Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." It 
is admitted — fully admitted by the members of the church 
of Rome, that our Lord designed to rescind the Jewish 
Passover and to substitute the Christian sacrament in its 
stead. But the precise point which should be retained in 
mind, — the point which explains our Lord's words in the 
instituting this sacrament, is, that He instituted it while eat- 
ing the Passover. It was the bread of the Passover He 
took and blessed and distributed. It was the wine of the 
Passover He took and blessed and distributed. Every form 
that had been gone through, was some form of the Pass- 
over ; and every word that had been spoken, was some 
word connected with the Passover. Under these circum- 
stances it will be felt by reasonable men, that as it was not 
unlikely our Lord's words and actions, in instituting this 



356 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



new festival, would have some reference to those of the old 
festival, so it is to the Passover we are to look for an ex- 
planation of the sacrament. We feel as sure as of any 
verity on earth, that it is the true explanation of this matter. 
When Moses, at the command of God, instituted the feast 
of the Passover, he desired the Israelites, as we read in 
Exodus xii. 1 — 14, to kill a lamb — to sprinkle its blood on 
their houses, and to eat the flesh of the lamb. His words 
are, "Ye shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord's Pass- 
over." Now there is nothing more evident, than that 
the lamb they were eating, was not the Lord's Passover. 
The Lord's Passover was His passing through the land of 
Egypt, and passing over the houses of the Israelites who 
had sprinkled their doors with the blood of the lamb. The 
words are, "Ye shall eat it in haste. It is the Lord's 
Passover. For I will pass through the land of Egypt this 
night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, 
both man and beast ; and against all the gods of Egypt I 
will execute judgment; I am the Lord. And the blood 
shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are ; 
and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the 
plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite 
the land of Egypt." — Exodus xii. 12, 13. We thus learn, 
that the Lord's passing over the Israelites was one thing, 
and the lamb that was eaten by the Israelites was another 
thing ; that one was a fact, and the other a memorial of that 
fact. And therefore, when Moses says of the lamb, " It is 
the Lord's Passover," he must mean that the lamb was the 
token or memorial of the Lord's Passover. He could not 
possibly have meant, that the lamb which had been roasted 
and which thev were eating, was literally, truly, substan- 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



357 



tially changed or transubstantiated into the Lord's passing 
over the houses of the Israelites. He must have meant, 
and the advocates of the church of Rome freely acknow- 
ledge that he must have meant, that the lamb was not 
literally, truly, substantially the Passover of the Lord, but 
only the token or memorial of it. Though Moses simply 
says — " It is the Lord's Passover," yet his words are to be 
interpreted as meaning — " It is the memorial of the Lord's 
Passover." We have thus, on their own admission, an 
example of that mode of speaking, which calls the memo- 
rial by the name of that, of which it is the memorial. 

He saw the point of this explanation in a moment. He 
said, it seemed natural and reasonable. And he supposed 
that our Lord, in using similar expressions, did no more 
than what was easily intelligible to the apostles; — that is, 
He gave the name of the thing itself to that which was only 
its memorial. 

I said — -he had anticipated my explanation, which was 
founded on the method in which the Israelites celebrated 
this festival every year. This festival was yearly celebrated 
in every family. The lamb having been roasted, the mem- 
bers of the household were assembled ; and the head of 
the family or the master of the household, standing at the 
head of the table, pronounced the words — "This is the 
Lord's Passover." He then gave it to those that were 
present, and they ate it according to the injunctions of 
Moses. Now there is nothing more evident, than that the 
lambs, that were thus eaten in after-years in the land of 
Israel, were not truly, literally, substantially changed or 
transubstantiated into the Lord's passing over the houses 
of the Israelites, or even into the original lamb of the 



358 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

Passover that had been eaten in Egypt. There is nothing 
more evident, than that these lambs were designed as 
tokens or memorials of that true Passover, which had 
taken place ages before. The advocates of the church of 
Rome are constrained to acknowledge this. They are 
constrained to acknowledge, that in all the families of 
Israel for so many hundreds of years it was usual to say, 
" This is the Lord's Passover," when it was meant to con- 
vey — " This is the memorial of the Lord's Passover : " they 
are constrained to confess, that as every head of a family 
was in the yearly habit of solemnly uttering these words, 
and that as every member of all the nation of the Israelites, 
was in the yearly habit of hearing these words solemnly 
uttered, so there must have been an universal knowledge 
of this mode of expression, by which the memorial is called 
by the name of that, of which it is the memorial. 

Now the next step in our explanation which gives the 
full and clear account of our Lord's words, is, that our 
Lord had assembled with His disciples to eat the Passover; 
to celebrate with His disciples for the last time this Pass- 
over which, I have been describing. He, there, as the Mas- 
ter or Head of those disciples, must have pronounced the 
words, " This is the Lord's Passover." He must have 
pronounced those words over the paschal lamb. Not that 
it really was the Lord's passing over the houses of the 
Israelites ; not that it was the original lamb that was slain 
and eaten in Egypt, but that it was the token or memorial 
of it. And thus our Lord, on that occasion, had in the 
ears of all His disciples used this mode of expression, by 
which the memorial of the thing, is called by the name of 
the thing of which it is the memorial. And then, when 



TRAXSUBSTANTIATIOX. 



359 



immediately afterwards He rescinded that feast of the 
Passover, and substituted the feast of the Lord's Supper in 
its stead, it was no more than natural, that He should use 
the same mode of expression in the new sacrament, which 
was used in the old sacrament ; it was no more than 
natural, that he should utter the same form of phrase res- 
pecting the Christian sacrament, which only a few moments 
before He had used respecting the Jewish sacrament ; it 
was no more than natural, that as He had the moment 
before said of the lamb, " This is the Passover," when He 
meant, " This is the memorial of the Passover," so He 
should now say of the bread, " This is My body broken," 
when He meant, " This is the memorial of My body 
broken." 

He entered very frankly into this, saying, it was perfectly 
satisfactory to his mind. He guarded himself against 
being misunderstood as assenting to my opinion against 
transubstantiation. He was a Roman Catholic and believed 
with his church ; but, he said, that that did not prevent his 
seeing that I had fairly explained the reason of our Lord 
using that particular form of expression. It was one the 
apostles were accustomed to — it was one they had just 
heard Him apply to the Jewish sacrament, so that they felt 
no surprise, and could make no mistake nor misunderstand 
Him, when they heard Him now apply the same form of 
expression to the Christian sacrament. He seemed fully 
to understand and appreciate this explanation and thanked 
me warmly for it. 

He said, however, he had felt another difficulty when he 
had listened to conversations on this subject. It was not 
that he had any very precise or clear views on such points. 



360 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



He left such questions of theology to professional men — to 
the clergy — that he was himself born and educated a 
Roman Catholic, and intended to live and die one, as his 
family had always done before him — that he hoped a man 
might be a good Catholic and a good Christian without 
troubling himself about theological controversy ; but still 
sometimes he liked to understand a subject when made a 
topic of conversation. Now the precise difficulty on which 
he ventured to ask my opinion was this — He had once 
been arguing with the confessor of his family — in fact his 
own confessor — on this subject of transubstantiation. He 
had argued, of course, for argument's sake, that a man 
ought not to be required to believe a dogma so contrary to 
his reason — so contrary to his common sense, as that the 
little wafer or bread is really, truly, substantially changed 
into God Himself ; — that this little thing, which the priest's 
servant makes, and which the priest blesses, and which he 
holds in his two fingers, and which he places in my mouth 
and which I eat and swallow, is the great God and Creator 
Himself ! He added that his confessor replied that it was 
the essence of faith — religious faith, to believe what is 
revealed ; and as reason leads often astray, and common 
sense often misleads, — as they both were liable to great 
perversion ; so it was the province of religious faith to 
believe the revelation of God against all the reason and 
sense of fallen man. It was becoming a Christian to be 
humble, and to have an humble opinion of his own judg- 
ment; and he should therefore bow to the revelation of God. 
He said, the priest cited the doctrine of the Trinity, as in 
the same way contrary to reason and common sense, as it 
was called ; and that -it was a great inconsistency in the 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



361 



Protestants, that they received the Trinity while they 
rejected tran substantiation. They were both alike con- 
trary to human sense and reason. He concluded, by asking 
me whether I could resolve this difficulty, as he should like, 
he said, laughingly, to puzzle his confessor. 

I said, that his confessor had given a very fair answer to 
his argument; and that the real difficulty was, that his 
argument was defective ; — that he had not stated the ob- 
jection against transubstantiation correctly, and therefore 
left himself open to this answer. The defect of his mode 
of stating his argument was, that he had said that transub- 
stantiation was contrary to common sense and reason. 

And is not that your opinion as a Protestant ? he asked 
me earnestly. And how else should the argument be 
stated? He had always thought that that was the objection. 

My reply to this was, that his statement might be very 
true and correct, but was liable to the answer his confessor 
had given to it. The true objection is, that this dogma is 
contrary to the senses — not that it is contrary to reason or 
sense, as we understand the phrase, common sense, but 
contrary to the senses — the bodily senses, the sense of sight, 
touch, smell, taste. This is the real objection, and this has 
no answer. I proposed to illustrate this. 

I then narrated the well-known anecdote, sometimes 
ascribed to the celebrated Buckingham. He was confined 
to his couch ; and as the priests were very anxious to make 
a convert of him, he proposed to amuse himself at their 
expense. He therefore yielded to the entreaties of those 
around him, and consented to receive a confessor. This 
man proceeded to address the witty noble on the subject 
of repentance and death and the sacraments. But he dis- 

R 



362 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



regarded all that was said, in the most studied manner ; 
affecting a sort of wandering or imbecility of mind. He 
held a cork in his hand, spoke of it as his favourite horse, 
patted its sides, and stroked its mane, till the confessor, 
pitying the state of his mind, spoke to him on the subject. 
He assured him it was not his horse, but only a cork. The 
other insisted it was indeed his horse, and begged him to 
observe its noble neck, its beautiful head, its flowing mane, 
its finely-formed limbs, its splendid action ! Still the good 
chaplain persevered and argued with him, to the effect that 
if he would only look at it, he might see it was not like a 
horse, but only a cork — that if he would only feel it, he 
might perceive it was not a horse but only a cork — that if 
he would smell it, he might smell that it was not a horse but 
only a cork — that if he would taste it, he might at once 
perceive it did not taste like a horse but only a cork. The 
other seemed struck by this process of argument, and gave 
way, confessing he might have been deceived by some one 
who had told him it was his horse, and whom he had 
hastily believed without due consideration. He now was 
convinced it was only a cork. The confessor having suc- 
ceeded thus far continued his religious exhortations, and in 
the end, proposed administering to him the Holy Sacra- 
ment, to which he at once assented. Everything was soon 
arranged ; and the confessor gave him the consecrated 
host. He asked him what it was ? The confessor answered 
it was the Lord Jesus Christ — it was the body of God. 
This, exclaimed the merry wit in affected astonishment, 
this Jesus Christ — this the body of God ! It is only a little 
wafer of flour and water ! The good chaplain was shocked, 
and assured him, that it was the body and blood of the 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



383 



Lord. The other then proceeded to argue with him, and 
said, that he must be under some mental hallucination, for 
if he would look at it, he might see it was not like Jesus 
Christ, but only a wafer — that if he would feel it, he might 
perceive by the touch that it was not like Jesus Christ, but 
only a wafer — that if he would taste it, he would perceive 
that it was not like Jesus Christ, but was only a little wafer 
— that if he would smell it, he would at once find that it was 
not like Jesus Christ, but was only a little piece of flour 
and water. And he assured the confessor that there could 
be no doubt that a man must be out of his senses, who be- 
lieved a thing so contrary to his senses. The confessor 
could only withdraw in despair. 

My Roman Catholic acquaintance was exceedingly amused 
at this anecdote. He thoroughly enjoyed it ; and I sus- 
pected, from what he said, that he meant to try its effects 
on his family confessor on the next occasion of a contro- 
versy with him. He mentioned a few droll incidents which 
had occurred in the history of his family, connected with 
religious questions, and it was some time before I was able 
to bring him back to the object I had in view. 

I reminded him, that in the anecdote of the witty Buck- 
ingham and the simple confessor, the former never alluded 
to reason or common sense — had never argued that tran- 
substantiation was impossible or contrary to reason or 
common sense. If he had done so he could have been 
answered by some platitudes and common-places about 
faith and humility and submission of judgment, and about 
the pride of reason and the humility of faith ; and all that 
kind of thing, which, though easily answered, takes a longer 
time to answer than it deserves. He was a man too keen 
R 2 



364 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



for such a mistake ; he therefore assailed the doctrine as 
contrary to the senses, that is, to the bodily senses, to the 
sense of sig-ht, the sense of touch, the sense of taste, the 
sense of smell. The remaining sense, that of hearing, does 
not bear upon it. This is the true objection, — we taste the 
consecrated elements and we find they are precisely the 
same they were before consecration; they taste not like 
Jesus Christ, but simply as bread and wine. We see them 
and observe they are exactly the same they were before ; 
we see they are not like Jesus Christ, but merely bread 
and wine as before. And it is the same with the sense of 
touch and the sense of smell. The objection thus is, that 
this dogma is contrary to the bodily senses. And when 
stated in this way it has the invaluable advantage that it 
cannot be answered, as he himself had been answered by 
his family confessor, namely, by alluding to the doctrine of 
the Trinity, and arguing that it too is a mystery contrary 
to reason and common sense, as much as transubstantiation. 
My objection, I said, was not liable to this, for it refers 
only to the bodily senses; and I can therefore say, that 
however the Trinity may be above and beyond these, it 
certainly is not contrary to them. To which of our bodily 
senses is the Trinity contrary? sight — smell — hearing — 
taste — feeling ? It is altogether above and beyond their 
reach or range, and cannot be tested by them, it cannot be 
tried by them. Whereas — and here is the grand difference 
between it and transubstantiation — the latter is properly 
and altogether within reach of all our senses, and there- 
fore may be tried and tested by them, and when so tried 
and tested it is found contrary to the bodily senses. There 
is no parallel between them ; the Trinity is beyond their 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



865 



reach, and cannot be tested by them. Transubstantiation 
is properly within their sphere, and is rejected by them. 

He was thoroughly pleased with this argument, at least 
he so expressed himself ; and he was one who seemed to 
enter on such subjects with an intellectual pleasure rather 
than a religious feeling. It seemed to me that it touched, 
as it were, a nerve in his intellectual system. He asked 
me several questions, so as to make himself perfectly master 
of the argument ; and he said, he thought it impossible to 
answer ; and that he could conceive no reply except one 
that would impeach the certainty of the senses. 

I stated, that this very objection had been made ; but 
that the reply was obvious, and all was the more cogent, 
because it was practical. Although perhaps some one of 
the senses may be mistaken under particular circumstances, 
when the other senses are brought to assist it, they cannot 
be mistaken. If we suppose an object at a distance so 
great, as that our sight may be mistaken, and then bring it 
so near as that we can feel it, and examine it by our sight 
and also by our other senses, — if we suppose an apple at 
such a distance, that we cannot see clearly whether it be 
an apple or an orange, yet, when bringing it near, we ex- 
amine it by our sight and see it is an apple and not an 
orange ; and then feel it, and then smell it, and then taste 
it, and then find that each sense proves it an apple, and not 
an orange, we then have the strongest evidence that can be 
submitted to the human mind. And when, in like manner, 
the consecrated bread or wine is before us, and we look on 
it, and see that it does not look like Jesus Christ, but only 
like bread and wine ; when next we handle it, and find 
that it does not feel like Jesus Christ ; when next we taste 



366 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



it, and find that it does not taste like Jesus Christ ; when 
again we smell it, and find that it does not smell like Jesus 
Christ, but only like bread and wine : when thus we have 
brought it to the test of four senses, and find it still the 
same thing, we feel that we have the strongest evidence 
that God can give or man receive, that there is no truth in 
Transubstantiation, for that the bread and wine do, after 
consecration, retain the very same substance of bread and 
wine as before consecration. 

My Roman Catholic companion seemed frank and candid. 
He was disposed to admit the force of an argument op- 
posed to his own opinions, although he found himself unable 
to yield to it. I felt that I ought not to press the subject 
more, as he suggested no farther difficulty. 

There are, however, some members of the church of 
Rome, who feel a difficulty in submitting to the evidence 
of the bodily senses. When I have met such persons, I 
have endeavoured to press on them some of the three fol- 
lowing considerations — 

In the first place, our Lord appeals to them as the last 
and most decisive court of appeal upon the greatest of all 
truths. After His resurrection, He appealed to His disci- 
ples, and "He said unto them, Why are ye troubled ? and 
why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? Behold My hands 
and My feet, that it is I Myself : handle Me, and see ; for 
a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have. And 
when He had thus spoken, He shewed them His hands and 
His feet." — Luke xxiv. 38 —40. Here was a direct appeal 
to their senses of seeing and feeling. Again; we read, 
that when Thomas came and would not believe the accounts 
he heard, "Jesus came and said unto Thomas, Reach 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



367 



hither thy finger, and behold My hands ; and reach hither 
thy hand, and thrust it into My side : and be not faithless, 
but believing," — John xx. 27. This was a direct appeal 
to the senses, as if they were the most certain evidence of 
the truth. We say, the most certain evidence ; and we are 
justified in this, because this evidence is expressly stated in 
Holy Scripture to be infallible. We refer to the words 
which open the Acts of the Apostles : '.' The former treatise 
have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to 
do and to teach, until the day in which He was taken up, 
after that He through the Holy Ghost had given command- 
ment unto the apostles whom He had chosen : to whom 
also He showed Himself alive after His passion by many 
infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speak- 
ing of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." — 
Acts i. 1 — 3. It is here stated, that our Lord gave infal- 
lible proof of His resurrection ; and that infallible proof 
was the fact that the sense of hearing and the sense of 
seeing, which the disciples enjoyed, and which examined 
His risen body, attested His resurrection. This is the 
only place in the Holy Scripture, in which infallibility is 
mentioned ; and it is not a little remarkable, that it is ap- 
plied to the evidence of the bodily senses ; so that we have 
the '* infallible" evidence of our senses against the doc- 
trine of Transubstantiation. 

In the second place, it is to be remembered, that not 
only in the matter of the resurrection, but also in every 
thing else, it has pleased God to make His appeal to our 
senses. If He has proved the mission of His prophets 
and apostles by miracles, it must be felt that He has ap- 
pealed to our senses. For what is a miracle but an ap- 



368 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

peal to our senses ? It is an appeal to the sense of sight, 
by which we see a manifest setting aside the course of 
nature. What is the message of the Gospel, whether 
written or preached, but an appeal to our sight, by which 
we read it ; or an appeal to our hearing, by which we hear 
it ? What were the words of Jesus, but an appeal to our 
hearing ? and what were the miracles of Jesus, but an 
appeal to our seeing ? If God displayed His hatred of 
sin by destroying the whole world by a deluge of waters, or 
by proclaiming His law amidst the thunders and lightnings 
of Sinai : or if God displayed His love of His people, by 
sending the prophets to preach to us, or by founding His 
Church in the midst of us, or by giving His Son to die 
for us, He has invariably made that display, whether of 
hatred or love, by an appeal to our senses. And as every 
prophecy that was delivered, and every command that was 
given, and every doctrine that was taught, and every 
miracle that was wrought, was an appeal to the senses of 
seeing, or of hearing, or of feeling ; so we have the autho- 
rity of Heaven's example for making our bodily senses the 
great and final court of appeal. 

In the third place, it is a point admitted by all writers 
on the nature of human knowledge — it is a point clearly 
established by Locke in his Essay on the Human Under- 
standing, that all the knowledge we possess must be 
through the medium of the bodily senses. If we have 
knowledge of past history, that knowledge has reached us 
through books which we have read ; or in other words, 
through our sense of sight by which we have read those 
books. If we have knowledge of the transactions of other 
lands, not by books nor by sight, but by the narration of 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



369 



others, that knowledge reaches us through the sense of 
hearing, by which we hear those narrations. There are 
other departments of knowledge, which we obtain through 
the channel of the other senses. All our pleasures and 
our pains — all our joys and our sorrows — are connected 
with those things that have reached us through one or the 
other of the senses. And this is so universal, that we 
know nothing, and can know nothing, unless we hear it, 
or see it, or feel it, or taste it, or smell it. So universal is 
this, that the advocates of the church of Rome always make 
their own appeal to our senses ; for however they are dis- 
posed to throw a doubt on their evidence on this question 
of Transubstantiation, yet they adduce no proof in its sup- 
port, except an appeal to the senses. They point to certain 
words in the Scriptures. And what is this, but an appeal 
to our sense of sight ? And if our sense of sight, when 
examining the bread, may be, as they assert, so mistaken 
that we only see it as bread when really it is Christ, then 
our sense of sight, when examining the words of Scripture, 
may in like manner be so mistaken, as that we only see one 
thing, when the words are really something else. If our 
sense of sight is competent to determine without doubt that 
these words are in the Scriptures, then our sense of sight is 
equally competent to determine without doubt whether the 
consecrated bread be really bread or really Christ. 

I have ever found these three considerations sufficient to 
satisfy calm and earnest and honest enquirers, that our 
bodily senses are not to be set aside, or put in abeyance 
upon this question. But all the advocates of Romanism 
are not of this class ; and indeed they have felt the force of 
the argument, as derived from the bodily senses, so much 
R 5 



370 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



that they have invented a new system of philosophy in order 
to counteract it. They teach that the appearance and the 
taste and the smell and the feeling of the consecrated 
bread, are only accidents and not realities ; that all these 
may be there, and yet the substance not there ; that all 
these properties and peculiarities of bread may be there, and 
yet something else, instead of the bread, be there all the 
while ; that the size and the colour and the shape and 
every other property characteristic of various substances, 
does not really belong to them — that these things are only 
a species of phantoms, a species of hollow nothingness in 
themselves, and yet contain something altogether different 
from what they seem to contain. The advocates of the 
church of Rome have therefore been compelled to invent 
a system of philosophy peculiar to themselves, and accord- 
ing to this philosophy an object is round and yet not 
round, and it is square and yet not square, and it is long 
and yet not long, and it is white and yet not white ; but 
white may be black, and black may be white, for we are 
not to judge that it is white because it looks white, or 
that it is black because it looks black, for that this colour 
is only an accident or appearance, and there is really 
something else of a different colour under this accident 
or appearance. We are not to call the snow white ; nor 
the grass green, nor the sky blue, for that these are only 
accidents or appearances, distinct from the realities, and 
so distinct, that it may be the snow is really black, 
though it looks white, and the grass crimson, though it 
looks green, and the sky scarlet, though it looks blue. 
It would be obviously impossible, within the limits of this 
paper, to expose this system of philosophy as fully as I 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



371 



might ; but at least I may ask, if all these accidents of the 
consecrated bread are really nothing else than phantoms 
and shadowy and unreal nothings, how comes it to pass, 
that the consecrated bread, when kept for awhile, begins to 
moulder and to fill with worms and to be eaten by worms, 
and to vanish away by the process of decay, just like all 
real substances ? It is evident, that unreal phantoms and 
shadowy nothings could not produce worms and feed 
worms. And then, when all is decaying away, what, I 
ask, becomes of Jesus Christ, who was supposed to be the 
real substance under those accidents ? Has He become 
mouldy ? Has He become corrupt ; contrary to the word, 
" Thou wilt not suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption ? " 
Has He produced worms ? Have the worms been eating 
our Saviour and our God ? And when all appearances or 
accidents are vanished away, what becomes of Him, who is 
supposed to be the real substance under them ? Has He 
too vanished away ? They tell us, that as soon as the con- 
secrated bread begins to decay — as soon as the worms ap- 
pear, then Jesus Christ departs, and the annihilated bread 
comes back again, or the whole thing is transubstantiated 
back again into bread ! There is thus a double Transub- 
stantiation ! One is accomplished with the words of con- 
secration, but the other is accomplished without these or 
any words of consecration . In one, the bread is transub- 
stantiated into Jesus Christ, at the words of the priests ; in 
the other, Jesus Christ is transubstantiated back again 
into bread, at the sight of the worms ! 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. — III. 



A SCENE AT THE KILLERIES AN IRISH READER AND A SCAPULA- 

RIAN THE USE OF RIDICULE IN CONTROVERSY DANGEROUS 

THE SIN OP EXPOSING RELIGION, AND RELIGIOUS THINGS TO 

SCOFFING AN ANECDOTE RESPECTING MAYNOOTH THIS SIN 

CHARGED AGAINST THE CHURCH OF ROME IN THE RUBRICS, 

DE DEFECTIBUS, IN THE ROMAN MISSAL AGAIN IN HER VIEWS 

OF THE INSTITUTION OF THE LORd's SUPPER. 

Those who are acquainted with the West of Ireland, — with 
the district in which so many conversions from the church 
of Rome have lately taken place, — will remember the Kil- 
leries. An arm of the sea, extremely narrow but of great 
extent, winds its way among the mountains, forming what 
the Norwegians call a fiord. It is a scene of great wildness, 
but of beauty and grandeur also. 

This district, about twenty-five years ago, was scarcely 
known. There had been no roads that could be traversed 
except on wild ponies, until the government made those 
noble roads that have now opened the district. And for a 
very long period after their completion, there were few 
indeed who had love enough for the wild and sublime in 
nature, to visit scenes, where it was thought impossible to 
obtain any accommodation. I had an intense love for such 



TRANSUBST ANTU TION. 



373 



scenery. The savage wildness of the place, — the perfect 
solitude that characterised it, — the fine reach of the sea, 
sweeping in from the broad Atlantic, — the height and gran- 
deur of the mountains, — and the deep and intense silence 
that sometime pervaded mountain, valley and water, gave to 
the scene an inexpressible charm. At least it was so to my 
feeling, and frequently I used to visit it. I often rode over 
a distance of about fourteen miles to Maam, where the 
government engineer had built a small house, which on 
his departure was converted into a little inn. There I 
secured a bed and stabled my horse, and then proceeded on 
foot some eight or nine miles further to the Killeries. 

One day while here, I observed a fishing-boat with some 
half-a-dozen men laying a net for the salmon. They used 
to ascend this fiord in great numbers. I was looking at 
them for some time from a high rock far above the shore, 
and I noticed two other men seated at some distance appa- 
rently in very earnest conversation. They had books in 
their hands. I had not much time to indulge in curiosity 
as to their books or their conversation, though I had my 
suspicions as to the nature of both, when I saw the fisher- 
men preparing to draw their nets. They did this usually at 
a certain state of the tide, when they saw the salmon rise. 
It seemed to me as if the nets checked the advance of the 
fish, which immediately rose to the surface to advance up 
the bay ; upon this the fishermen drew the nets, and as I 
descended to witness this, I reckoned nearly forty salmon, 
netted at a single haul ! I spoke to the fishermen, and 
to the cadgers with little ragged ponies and donkeys, 
with panniers, who purchased the fish at about one penny 
the pound, and immediately proceeded further inland to ob- 



374 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



tain a market for it. They had from fifteen to twenty miles 
to travel, before they could have the slightest prospect of 
selling a single fish. 

When leaving this busy little scene of fishing, I observed 
the two men, whom I had before noticed in conversation. 
They knew who I was, and addressed me with the usual 
courtesy of the people. I found that one of them was an 
Irish reader, that is, one who taught the Irish language, 
and who was in the habit of reading the Holy Scriptures in 
Irish in the cottages upon the mountain. The other was a 
confraternity man, a very zealous and active Roman Catho- 
lic, whose knowledge of Latin had given him a great repu- 
tation among the peasantry. They had been engaged in 
an animated though friendly controversy. 

The Roman Catholic appealed to me whether it was right to 
have recourse to ridicule on so serious a subject, — that there 
was nothing held in the church of Rome in so great and 
profound belief and reverence, as the doctrine of the Holy 
Sacrament. They believed that it was very Jesus Christ, — 
that it was God himself, — that after the holy words of the 
priest the conversion or change took place, so as that it was 
no longer the wafer or bread, but the God-man, Jesus 
Christ himself, — that this was their belief, and that therefore 
they looked on it with every possible reverence. Now he 
complained that his companion had been arguing against 
this doctrine, in a way that turned it into ridicule, so as 
greatly to distress and pain his feelings, for that the subject 
was too grave and solemn for ridicule, and he felt it touched 
his religion too closely for him to like it. He did not, and 
would not show anger towards his companion, whom he 
very much respected and liked because he was a good man 



TRAXSUBSTAXTIATIOX. 



375 



and could talk well, but he did not like his religion to be 
ridiculed, and appealed to me whether it was right. 

It was apparent from the radiant countenance of one and 
the annoyed expression in the face of the other, that some 
hard hitting had passed between them, more to the satisfac- 
tion of the Protestant than of his Romanist friend. 

I said, however, that ridicule was a very effective, but 
verv often a dangerous weapon. It sometimes, like the knife 
of the operator, by cutting too deeply, not only cut away a 
cancer, but even life itself. And thus often in throwing 
ridicule on a given dogma, there is danger of the sense of 
the ridiculous going too deep, — adhering to the subject itself 
independent of the dogma, and thus it sometimes tends to 
a spirit of scepticism and infidelity. Such a weapon therefore 
should be used only with extreme caution; but it was clear 
that it might sometimes be used, and I shewed that by refer- 
ence to 1 Kings xviii. 27, where the prophet of God pours 
ridicule upon the gods of the heathen, " Elijah mocked them 
and said, Cry aloud : for he is a god ; either he is talking, 
or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he 
is asleep, and must be awaked ! " Here was ridicule. The 
thing therefore is admissible, though certainly it should be 
very seldom, very sparingly and very cautiously used, both 
for the sake of the subject itself, which is sacred, and for the 
sake of others, whose feelings may be wounded by it. 1 
added that in this case, the fault was not in the prophet who 
ridiculed these absurd notions about the gods of the hea- 
then, but in the heathen themselves, who invented notions 
so essentially ridiculous. If we would avoid ridicule, out- 
truest course is not to make ourselves ridiculous. 



376 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



The Scripture -Reader said very kindly that he had never 
ridiculed the religion of his friend — that he was detailing 
an anecdote and narrating what others had done, and that 
his friend had supposed he was ridiculing the church of 
Rome. It was altogether a mistake so far as he was con- 
cerned. He then mentioned that he was narrating what 
he had heard some years before, and which was called to 
mind by seeing a missal in the hand of his companion. 
Some gentlemen, of whom one had been a Roman Catholic 
educated at Maynooth, but who afterwards became a Pro- 
testant, were visiting the college. They took with them a 
very small short tract, printed on a single fly-leaf. This 
tract contained certain extracts from the missal and a few 
questions on each extract. These extracts were directions 
about the consecrated host in case a mouse should have 
eaten it, or the winds carried it away, or a dog run away with 
it, or a communicant vomited it ; and the questions were 
as to whether they really believed with the church of Rome, 
that if the consecrated host was God himself, He could not 
save himself from a mouse, or the wind, or a dog, or the 
sickness of a communicant ? He added, that he knew no- 
thing of the facts, but that he heard that the three gentle- 
men brought a number of these to the college of Maynooth, 
and as they went over it, they thrust them into every little 
corner or curious hole — on every book-shelf, or in every 
bed, and so left the college. It was said sometime after, 
that several of the students were expelled for heresy, and 
it was believed that they had found these papers, and were 
led to reject a belief in Transubstantiation. He concluded 
by saying that he had only mentioned this anecdote, and 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



377 



seeing his companion with a missal in his hand, and know- 
ing that he understood Latin, he had asked him to see 
whether these things were really in the Roman Missal. 

This gave a turn to our conversation, when I remarked 
that wherever the fault was, it certainly was not with him, 
who had only narrated the conduct of others. Our Roman 
Catholic friend acknowledged this, but aclded, that it was 
very wrong to throw any ridicule on the religion of others ; 
and especially to invent such calumnies against the most 
sacred of all the doctrines of the church. There was noth- 
ing of the kind in the Roman Missal, or he would reject 
them himself as much as any one in the world. 

I then stated that there was a sacredness, a religiousness, 
on such subjects that ought to remove them beyond the 
pale of ridicule, but that often it was difficult to speak of 
some religions, without a sense of the ridiculous. In some 
countries, as in parts of Africa, when a man means to pray 
from his innermost soul he writes his prayer upon paper, and 
then swallows it, thinking it then a prayer in his heart ! In 
other lands, as in Thibet, when a man would pray much, he 
writes his prayer on paper, and places it in a rotatory ma- 
chine, and supposes that his prayer is multiplied by every 
turn of the wheel, and that he becomes thus a man of many 
prayers ! Practices like these throw an air of the absurd 
and ridiculous upon religion, and tend to degrade it in the 
eyes of thinking men. Now the sin here would not be in 
the men, whose sense of the ridiculous is excited by such 
absurdities. The sin — and it is a great sin — is with those 
who invest religion with accessories that are ridiculous or 
absurd. 

But, said the Roman Catholic, these are heathenish re- 



378 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



ligions, and not real religion at all ; and there is nothing 
in the church of Rome that could excite the ridicule of any. 

I stated quietly and very gently to him, that that was 
the very question hetween him and his companion — that 
his companion had heard that there were such things in 
the Roman Missal, and had asked him to read and inform 
him whether it indeed was so. Now, I added, it is a sad 
and painful fact, that all he has stated is really in the 
Roman Missal, and surely you will allow that if the church 
of Rome has printed such things in her Missal, it is she 
who is to bear the blame for inserting things so ridiculous 
and absurd, — rather than those who expose them. 

He said with great frankness, that if he thought such 
things were in the Missal, he would fling it into the sea 
from that spot where we then stood, and never would blame 
any man for ridiculing things so deserving of ridicule. 
He spoke with evident earnestness. 

I then asked him for the Missal. He gave it to me at 
once, and opening the rubrics respecting the defects de de- 
fectibus and other matters, I asked him to read with me, 
as he understood Latin. I then read as follows — 

" If the consecrated host disappear either by an accident 
or by the wind, or by a miracle, or by having been eaten 
by any animal, and cannot be found, then let another host 
be consecrated." 

Now here, I remarked, you believe that the consecrated 
Host is no longer bread, but Jesus Christ Himself — God 
Himself, no longer the creature, but the Creator, no longer 
bread but God ; and yet here the church of Rome supposes 
the marvellous absurdity of Jesus Christ, — may God pardon 
the thought, — being mislaid and lost by an accident ! — 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



379 



carried away by the wind ! and devoured by some animal ! 

I must do the man the justice, to say that he seemed 
shocked at this. I made him read it for himself, and he 
seemed more shocked than before. I then directed his at- 
tention to another rubric. 

" If a spider, or fly, or something else have fallen into 
the chalice before consecration, let him throw the wine 
into a suitable place, and place other wine in the chalice ; 
let him mix a little water, offer it as above, and continue 
the Mass. If a fly or something of this kind have fallen 
after consecration, and nausea arise in the priest, let him 
take it out, and wash it with wine ; at the end of the Mass, 
let him burn it, and let the combustion and lotion of this 
kind be thrown into the sacrarium. But if he has no nausea 
nor fear of any danger, let him take it with the blood" 

In the old editions, I remarked, there is the case sup- 
posed of a mouse making away with Jesus Christ ! Here 
however, we have only the case of a spider, or gnat, or fly, 
falling into the cup. And for this awful delinquency, the 
poor spider, or fly is to be carefully washed and prepared, 
and then, as if it were a heretic, it is to be burned to death ! 
But if the priest should be able to swallow it along with 
the wine, without danger of sickness of the stomach, he is 
desired so to take it. And the little transgressor, instead 
of being burnt to death, is destined for the higher privilege 
of being swallowed by the priest ! 

Again : "If in winter the blood be congealed in the cha- 
lice, let the chalice be wrapt in warm cloths ; if this does 
not succeed, let it be placed in hot water near the altar, 
provided it does not enter into the chalice, until it be 
melted." 



380 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Here our Creator, our God, the soul and Deity of Jesus 
Christ, are supposed to be frozen : and, as if He had no 
power to warm himself, the priests are to cover Him with 
warm cloths. And if He will not be softened by this, He 
is to be placed in hot water — in a warm bath till He is 
melted ! 

Again : " If through carelessness some of the blood of 
Christ have fallen — if indeed on the earth, or on the board, 
let it be licked with the tongue, and let the place itself be 
scraped as much as is sufficient, and let what has been 
scraped off be burned ; and let the ashes be laid up in the 
sacrarium. But if it have fallen on the stone of the altar, 
let the priest suck up the drop : and let the place be well 
washed, and the ablution be thrown into the sacrarium. If 
a drop has come on the linen of the altar, and to the se- 
cond linen — if even to the third, let the linen coverings be 
thrice washed, where the drop has fallen, placing the chalice 
under, and let the water of ablution be thrown into the 
sacrarium." 

Here if the Lord Jesus should fall from the carelessness 
of the priest — as if the Lord could not take care of Himself 
— He is to be licked up by the priest, and there is to be 
washing of the linen, and scraping of the earth, or rubbing of 
the board, that none of Him remain there ; whereas if it be 
really transubstantiated into Jesus Christ, as the church of 
Rome would persuade us, — if it really be Jesus Christ, and 
not merely wine, we might suppose He could go away of 
Himself, if He did not choose to remain. 

How is it possible, I asked, to read such rubrics as these, 
sanctioning such strange absurdities, without either our 
sense of ridicule being intensely excited, or our whole soul 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



381 



shocked at their profanity ? But there remained another, 
it gives inexpressible pain and sadness to read it, worse and 
more profane than all. It is as follows, 

" If the priest vomit forth the Eucharist, if the species 
appear entire, let them be reverently taken (i. e. eaten again) 
unless nausea arise ; for in that case, let the consecrated 
species be carefully separated, and let them be replaced in 
some sacred place, until they are corrupted, and afterwards 
let them be thrown into the sacrarium. But if the species 
do not appear, let the vomit be burned, and the ashes be 
thrown into the sacrarium." 

Of this, I said, I would say nothing. It supposes the 
priest to receive his God, and then to vomit his God ! I 
added that I had no desire to throw scorn or ridicule upon 
the church of Rome ; and though if so disposed, I could 
find abundant example in the biting sarcasms of the pro- 
phet Isaiah against the wooden gods of the heathen, and in 
the bitter irony of the prophet Elisha, against the idols of 
Baal, yet the very language the church of Rome herself has 
used — the very cases she herself has supposed — the very 
directions she herself has given — the very pages of the 
Roman Missal she herself has written — are more biting 
than any sarcasm that we could frame, and more bitter than 
any irony that we could utter. When she supposes a priest 
to vomit his God, and when she directs him to partake of 
it — to swallow it again, she exhibits herself, not only as the 
mother of superstitions, but also as the mother of abomina- 
tions. 

Ridicule assuredly is not the weapon with which to deal with 
such a system, however much it may deserve it or provoke 
it. It is weeping and shame and humiliation, that most be- 



382 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



comes us, where any professing church can expose the most 
sacred things of Christ to the jests of the scoffer, and the 
ridicule of the infidel . 

During the reading of these rubrics, which I made our 
Roman Catholic companion read with me, he never spoke, 
but stood with lips closely compressed, his eyes cast down, 
and a troubled expression on his countanance. After a 
pause, he said, that he had never before read that portion of 
the Missal, but now that he had seen it, he could no longer 
blame those who ridiculed the book, however little he liked 
ridicule against his church. He then took the Missal from 
my hands, and with all his force he flung it over the steep 
cliff-like banks to perish in the sea, using the emphatic 
words, " I have done with the Missal ! " 

I took the opportunity of the casting away the Missal to 
call his attention to " the casting away the word of the 
Lord of Hosts," which was charged against the unbeliev- 
ing Jews. — Isaiah v. 24. It was the sin of the church of 
Rome, that she practically cast it away. And while en- 
larging on the value, the usefulness, the power of the 
Holy Scriptures, I expressed a hope, that as he had cast 
away the word of his church, so he might now be induced 
to take up the Word of his God. 

One observation led to another, especially as his mind 
was still dwelling on our former subject, and he was asking 
questions respecting it. I was induced thus, while walking 
homeward towards my Inn, having been accompanied a 
large portion of my way by both the men, to state again 
that whatever were the evils connected with ridicule and 
sarcasm in reference to religious tenets, they belonged to 
those who held and taught ridiculous and absurd tenets, 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



383 



— rather than to those who exposed their ridiculous and 
absurd character. 

I illustrated this by specifying the doctrine of Transub- 
stantiation. In order to uphold that doctrine in the church 
of Rome, it is taught that our Lord celebrated the first 
Mass — that in instituting the sacrament of the last supper, 
he celebrated the first sacrifice of the Mass. This is broadly 
asserted in most of the catechisms of the church of Rome. 
It is essential to the Mass that the celebrating priest shall 
himself partake of the elements in both kinds, shall par- 
take of the consecrated bread and the consecrated wine ; 
at least, it is so asserted in that church ; so that if our 
Lord celebrated Mass on that occasion, he must have par- 
taken of it himself. Now the difficulty is this — one that, 
were it not for the sacredness of the subject, and the reli- 
giousness of all its associations, might awaken unmeasured 
ridicule — If our blessed Lord in consecrating the bread and 
wine, did really, truly, substantially change or transub- 
stantiate them injto himself, into his own body, and blood, 
and soul, and divinity — if our blessed Lord did all this as 
the church of Rome teaches, then he must have held him- 
self in his own hands, and given himself to his apostles 
to eat, and they must have eaten and swallowed him, as 
all the while he was sitting at the table before them ! And 
this not once, but twice, first when he gave the bread, and 
afterwards when he gave the cup. 

" Well, sir," he said, with calm and quiet manner, 
" strange as it may seem to you — ridiculous and absurd as 
it may seem to you — I believe it. The church has declared 
it. The church believes it — and I believe it." He added 
immediately afterwards, that he could not be surprised at 



384 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



persons regarding it as ridiculous and absurd, who did not 
believe the church. 

I then said — we both were speaking in the most friendly 
manner, and were on the frankest terms — that that was 
not the only difficulty. By the doctrine of the sacrifice of 
the Mass, the officiating priest must partake himself of the 
sacrifice, whether there are, or are not other communicants. 
On the occasion therefore of the last supper, our blessed 
Lord must, according to the church of Rome, have par- 
taken of the sacrament, and thus, not once, but twice, first 
on eating the bread and then on taking the wine, he must 
have eaten and swallowed himself ! Now I appeal to your- 
self, I said in all earnestness, whether a church, which 
teaches so monstrous a thing as this, is not guilty of throw- 
ing upon religion the utmost amount of ridicule, and ex- 
posing it to the scoff of an unbelieving world. It is 
enough to make good men doubt, whether most to weep 
in sorrow and sadness, or to pray for the annihilation of 
such a church. 

He seemed to feel the grossness of this consequence, 
but suggested that it was not clear in Scripture that our 
Lord himself partook of this sacrament. 

My reply to this was, that I agreed with him that it was 
not so clearly stated in Scripture, but that the difficulty, 
unhappily, was that the church of Rome had very clearly 
asserted it ; teaching that our Lord on that occasion, cele- 
brated the first sacrifice of the Mass, and that it was neces- 
sary to the being of that sacrifice, that the celebrating 
Priest should himself partake of it. The church of Rome 
had herself created the difficulty. 

He acknowledged this. But he never swerved from his 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



385 



position throughout a long conversation that ensued. He 
always stated, when hard pressed, that the church believed 
it, and therefore he believed it. This after a time, led us 
from our first subject into that which concerned the autho- 
rity of the Church. 

After we had parted from him, the Scripture Reader ac- 
companied me a little farther. 

I gave him some precautionary advice as to arguments 
derived from ridicule — that the sense of the ridiculous was 
very strong in the Irish character, stronger than in most 
nations — that for that cause it was possible it might cut 
farther and deeper than might be wise or good — and that 
therefore it should never be resorted to unless with extreme 
discretion. I added that ridicule often shook men out of 
one set of opinions, but never landed them in another. 

We soon after parted. The seeds that were then sowing 
in that country, have since been bringing forth fruit abun- 
dantly. 

I had yet some miles before me, and had some time for re- 
flection, and my thoughts ran on the mistakes that are often 
made in the conduct of controversy. How often we run 
into the vice of attacking the opinions of others instead of 
simply illustrating our own, and how often we begin by 
selecting the very points on which we differ, thus exciting 
and provoking collision and opposition, instead of those 
points on which we may be agreed, and which would there- 
fore tend to make us bear the more willingly with each 
other. I am convinced that this latter is the best and truest 
process, and incomparably the most successful. 

S 



HALF-COMMUNION. 



THE STATE OF IRELAND TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO CONTROVERSY 

AND CONVERSIONS TRUE MODE OF CONTROVERSY HALF-COM- 
MUNION INSTITUTION PRIMITIVE PRACTICE ADMITTED BY 

COUNCILS OF CONSTANCE AND TRENT THE WITHDRAWAL OF 

THE CUP ARGUMENTS IN ITS FAVOR EXAMINED WHETHER 

ADMINISTERED TO THE APOSTLES AS PRIESTS THE ARGUMENT 

OF CONCOMITANCE THE HISTORY OF THIS CONTROVERSY 

JACOBEL DE MYSA, AND JOHN OF LEYDEN — THEIR ARGUMENTS 
THE CIVIL WAR THAT ENSUED MOTIVES ASSIGNED FOR WITH- 
HOLDING THE CUP OTHER ARGUMENTS EXAMINED. 

The following paper was written twenty-five years ago. 
It was a time of much enquiry and discussion on the doc- 
trines at issue between the Roman and Protestant churches. 
In no place was it for a time attended with happier results, 
than in the parish in which I held a cure. A great majority 
were Roman Catholics ; among these a very considerable 
number had resolved to read the Holy Scriptures for them- 
selves, and form their own judgments on the topics so gener- 
ally discussed around them. For many months scarcely a day 
passed, without one or more of them asking my solution of 
the difficulties under which they labored. And the result 
was that one hundred and ten individuals withdrew from the 
church of Rome, and entered the church of England. 



HALF-COMMUNION. 



387 



On each Sunday, as in the communion- service of our 
church I had concluded the reading of the Nicene Creed, 
I paused for a few moments. One or two or more pew-doors 
were then opened, and one or more persons, till then always 
Roman Catholics, advanced to the communion rails, each 
accompanied by two of the Protestant parishoners. I had 
carefully examined them previously. They stated before 
the church their desire to be received as members of the 
church of England. And when their religious opinions and 
moral character were avouched by their Protestant neigh- 
bours, who accompanied them, they were received by me 
into the congregation. This continued for several months 
with scarcely the omission of a single Sunday. The 
strangeness of the scene, occurring as it did in a retired 
country parish, created great excitement. 

It could not continue long. As one of these converts 
rose the morning after he had been thus received, and 
opened the door of his house, he perceived his grave already 
prepared, — already dug before his door, and found a notice 
requiring him to return to the church of Rome or prepare 
immediately for his grave ! The following night a number" 
of men dashed open the door of his house, — asked whe- 
ther he intended to comply with their commands, — on 
receiving a refusal, they beat him dreadfully, and then with 
a vessel of water they proceeded to rebaptise him forcibly 
into the church he had forsaken ! Then smashing to atoms 
every article of furniture in the house they departed. This 
man continued faithful, and one of these misguided fellows 
was convicted of the offence and transported. 

There was another still more painful affair. The school- 
master of the Roman Catholic school had been reading the 
S 2 



388 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Holy Scriptures for some time, and at last announced his 
intention of going to the parish church and there renouncing 
the church of Rome. When the day arrived, he left his 
cottage at the usual hour, but never reached the church. 
On that holy day, — that day of rest, and peace, and love, 
he was waylaid, — his brains dashed out, and thus he was 
atrociously murdered on the high-road between his cottage 
and the church ! The New Testament and some Protestant 
tracts were found in his pockets, The murderers were 
never discovered. 

A few more incidents of a similar character spread a ter- 
ror through the neighbourhood. Fear seized upon every 
one. The conversions ceased, and immediately the popula- 
tion began to emigrate. The converts were among the 
first that went, and they were soon followed by many who 
sought in a far distant clime the religious freedom, that was 
denied them in their fatherland. 

It was during this period, and when much engaged in 
practical controversy, that the following paper was written. 
It was at the request of one, who is now in another and 
happier world. 

In all conversations with true-hearted and earnest mem- 
bers of the church of Rome, it is of importance to avoid a 
tone or spirit of controversy — not avoiding the discussions 
of essential differences, but discussing them, as far as possi- 
ble, in a non-controversial manner. We too often seek for 
some point in dispute— seize it with avidity, and in a pug- 
nacious spirit, we proceed to argue which is right and 
which is wrong. The tendency of this, is to alienate rather 
than unite men. It would be infinitely better in every way, 



HALF-COMMUNION. 



389 



and far more successful, if we sought rather some point on 
which we are sure to be in accord — to commence the con- 
versation, not on points on which we are at issue, and which 
would at once awaken a spirit of resistance, but on princi- 
ples that are common to both churches. This process leads 
to a kindlier tone, and a more free and frank expression of 
the inner feelings, It tends to establish confidence, and 
when once this is established, there will be little difficulty 
in laying down some broad principles, upon which any 
argument may afterwards be based. A wise controversialist 
will always use such admitted principle — such acknowledged 
truth as the right arm of his after-discussion. 
I would illustrate this. 

It is not difficult to dwell on the example of Jesus Christ 
as the perfect model which we should follow. It is easy 
as well as pleasant to dilate on His mercy and goodness, 
and love and benevolence. It is easy as well as profitable, 
to dwell on His purity and holiness, and His wonderful life 
and death. It is easy to present Him as the perfection of 
human nature, and therefore as One whose example we 
should follow in all that is possible. Whatever be the 
example He set should be the object of our earnest imita- 
tion, so earnest as that we should feel a sacredness and 
religiousness in it, and feel that we are departing from 
Christ in exact proportion as we are departing from the 
example he has left for our imitation. Every Roman 
Catholic will readily assent to this, and therefore in this 
we have a truth or principle in common, on which we can 
safely argue. 

It is also not difficult to dwell on the sacredness that invests 
all his words and precepts. All that came from his lips 



390 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



was full of life and light and love, and will be felt to possess 
such a sacred religiousness and authority and majesty that 
every mouth must be stopped — every objection silenced — 
every argument set at nought — every thought suppressed 
that comes in collision with his words. Neither man nor 
church can demand anything that is clearly opposed to his 
words. When he has spoken, all mankind must be silenced. 
The question is already decided, Causa finita est; every 
Roman Catholic will acquiesce in this, and therefore here 
again there will be a common principle. 

It is not difficult too to come into accord as to the deep 
and essential sacredness of the sacraments. It is felt by all, 
and the feeling is probably as deep and profound among 
the members of the church of Rome, as among ourselves, 
that as they are the rites instituted by Christ Himself, as 
the signs and seals of our covenant relationship, so they ought 
to possess a peculiar sacredness of character in our eyes. 
And although there may be a difference between us as to the 
number of sacraments, yet there can be no difference in re- 
ference to those of Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, which 
are fully admitted by both alike, as being entitled to a 
peculiar, reverential, scrupulous and hallowed care, that 
nothing be done contrary to the words or opposed to the 
example of Jesus Christ respecting them. 

These principles will be readily admitted even by those 
who refuse to recognize the Holy Scriptures as the sole rule 
of faith and practice, and who refuse to submit to any pri- 
vate interpretation of them. These principles being settled, 
it will be easy to object against the practice of half-com- 
munion in the church of Rome, as a practice that prevents 
the possibility of our joining her communion. 



HALF-COMMUNION. 



391 



Her practice is this — The priest, who officiates, conse- 
crates both bread and wine ; he then himself partakes of 
both kinds — both the bread and the wine, and then, when 
administering to the people, he gives them only in one kind 
— only the bread, and not the wine. This is the practice 
of the church of Rome. The priest receives in both kinds, 
the communicants receive only in one kind. 

The argument is as follows — 

It has been admitted that we should strictly follow the 
ivords of oar Lord — that we should as far as possible imi- 
tate the example of oar Lord — that we should be specially 
careful to do this in so sacred a matter as the sacrament of 
the Lord's Supper. Now, the practice of half-communion 
in the church of Rome is admitted to be contrary to our 
Lord's words, and opposed to our Lord's example. 

Those words and example are as follows, 

" And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed 
it, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, 
eat ; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave 
thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it ; for 
this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for 
many for the remission of sins." — Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. 

" And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, 
and brake it, and gave it to them, and, said, Take, eat, this 
is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given 
thanks, he gave it to them : and they all drank of it. And 
he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, 
which is shed for many." — Mark xiv. 22, 23, 24. 

" And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and 
gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for 
you : this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the 



392 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in 
my blood, which is shed for you." — Luke xxii. 19, 20. 

" For I have received of the Lord that which I also de- 
livered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in 
which he was betrayed took bread : and when he had given 
thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat : this is my body, 
which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. 
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had 
supped, saying, This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remem- 
brance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink 
this cup of the Lord, unworthily, ye shall be gui]ty of the 
body and blood of the Lord. But let a man exercise himself, 
and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup." — 
1 Cor. xi. 23—28. 

When these four distinct and independent narratives are 
read, it will be seen, that they all agree in the one great 
fact, that our Lord instituted this sacrament in both kinds, 
— that He administered it in both kinds — that the apostles 
received it in both kinds. They also agree in the important 
fact that our Lord on giving the bread, said precisely the 
same as on giving the wine, and gave identically the same 
command on giving the wine as on giving the bread. The 
only distinction discernible is that according to St. Matthew, 
He added the speciality on administering the cup, " Drink 
ye all of it," as if he foresaw with prophetic eye the future 
withdrawal of the cup, and gave this special commandment 
as a warning of it. And in like manner there is added in 
St. Mark the farther speciality, " and they all drank it ; " 
as if to record for all posterity the fact that, in the original 
institution, when our Lord himself administered, and the 
apostles themselves received, they received the wine, as 



HALF-COMMUNION, 



393 



well as the bread. These specialities were not without 
design, and are very significant ; and the after-history of 
the church has proved their importance, and illustrated 
their true significance ; for in the church of Rome, no priest 
can now say to his communicant, " drink ye all of this," 
nor relate of them, that " they all drank of it," for the 
Roman priest who officiates, reserves the cup for himself 
alone, refusing to administer it to the whole body of com- 
municants — whether priests or laity. His practice is thus 
in direct opposition both to the words and to the example of 
Christ himself, in the sacred matter of this sacrament. 

When the subject has been placed in this light before the 
more candid and earnest members of the church of Rome, 
especially if it be done with kindness and courtesy, and the 
language be fashioned so as to be free from bitterness or 
scorn, it is sure to act strongly upon them. In nine cases 
out of ten, they are not aware of the distinctness of these 
Gospel narratives. They are not generally acquainted with 
the Scripture narrative. And they are thus taken by sur- 
prise. When I have observed this, I have usually added, 
—that there was a farther consideration that aggravated 
the conduct of the church of Rome in this matter, namely, 
that it was adopted and enforced with the knowledge — the 
avowed knowledge, that it was opposed to the words and 
contrary to the example of Christ himself, and to the prac- 
tice of the apostles and of all the primitive Church. 

The canon of the council of Constance admits this. 

" This Holy General Council of Constance assembled by 
the Holy Ghost, declares, decrees, defines that although 
(licet) Christ did after supper institute the holy sacrament, 
and administer it to his disciples in both kinds, yet not ■ 

S5 



394 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



withstanding this, the laudable authority of the sacred 
canons &c. — and although this sacrament was received by 
the faithful in both kinds in the primitive church, &c. — the 
Holy Council decrees &c." 

The decree of the council of Trent is to the same effect. 

" Although in the beginning of the Christian religion, 
in the administration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, 
the custom of receiving in both kinds was not unfrequent, 
yet in process of time, the practice being very widely 
changed, and having been so changed for wise and just 
causes, the Church has approved this custom of commu- 
nicating under one kind, decrees by law that it shall so 
continue, &c." 

These two decrees are the laws that regulate this practice 
of half-communion in the church of Rome. They admit 
that this practice is contrary to the original institution of 
Christ, and to the practice of the primitive Church ; they 
confess that " although " Jesus Christ has appointed it 
and the apostles have administered it, and the primitive 
church has received it in one way, yet notwithstanding 
this, the church of Rome adopts and decrees another and 
contrary way ! 

There are very few of the more enlightened members of 
the church of Rome, who do not keenly feel this consider- 
ation, founded on the admissions of the decrees of these 
two General Councils; — they are so broad and plain an 
admission of the unscriptural and novel character of her 
present practice. And when I have pressed this upon them, 
I have gone a step farther. Indeed I have always been 
unwilling to let the subject pass from me until I have added 
one farther consideration. 



HALF-COMMUNION. 



395 



I allude to the consideration that the privileges and bles- 
sings and graces, which Jesus Christ has connected with 
that sacramental memorial of his dying love, are connected 
only with that which He has instituted and as He has ap- 
pointed it. When, therefore, the church of Rome has 
altered His institution to which his promises are annexed, 
and has substituted another institution of her own in its 
stead, she has no reason to expect the blessings, and 
privileges, and graces connected with the sacrament of 
Jesus Christ. She has forfeited them by departure from 
the appointed sacrament. Instead of administering this 
sacrament, she administers only half a sacrament. In- 
stead of receiving the communion, her members receive 
only half a communion. This sacrament was originally 
instituted by our Lord in order to be the memorial of his 
dying love, to be taken in loving remembrance of the 
breaking of His body and the shedding of His blood on the 
cross ; and for the church of Rome to take away the 
memorial of that precious blood, — that blood of which we 
read that " it is the blood that maketh atonement for the 
soul," and " without shedding of blood there is no remis- 
sion of sins," and " we are redeemed — by the precious 
blood of Christ," and " His blood cleanseth from all sin," 
and "Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood," and 
"they washed their robes and made them white in the blood 
of the Lamb," and " the Church of God which he hath 
purchased with his own blood ; " — for the church of Rome 
to withhold the memorial of this precious blood in that 
very sacrament in which Jesus Christ so especially appointed 
it, is an act of impiety and sacrilege against Christ's own 
institution, which has no parallel in the whole history of 



396 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



the church, and which more than justifies the refusal of all 
Protestants to take part in her communion. 

This argument has weight with those members of the 
church of Rome, who are examining the points at issue be- 
tween the churches — searching after truth — enquiring for 
themselves, and therefore prepared simply and sincerely to 
accept or reject such argument on its merits. I have never 
met one such, who did not give up this practice of half- 
communion as untenable, and as one that ought never to 
have been adopted by the church of Rome. 

But there are two classes of persons who give very dif- 
ferent answers to the foregoing argument. There are some 
who are sincere, earnest, and candid, always prepared to 
ascribe due weight to an argument, and to acknowledge 
their inability to answer it, even though remaining uncon- 
vinced by it. There are others too, who affect to see no 
force in any, even the most conclusive argument, and who 
endeavour to escape it, by some subtle and unworthy device, 
miserable and weak in itself, though perhaps difficult and 
perplexing to the inexperienced to answer. 

With the former and more candid class it is frequently 
suggested that the arrangements, and forms, and ceremo- 
nies of the sacraments are matters for ecclesiastical regula- 
tion — that as the cup had been withheld for important rea- 
sons, so again it might be restored for important reasons 
— that it was not an article of faith, that must remain un- 
changed and unchangeable for ever, but only an article of 
discipline, that might at any time be altered, by the resto- 
ration of the cup by the very same authority which with- 
held it. Not unfrequently such persons express regret that 



HALF-COMMUNION. 



397 



it ever was withheld, and avow their wishes, that the pope 
may see cause to restore it. 

I have always answered this, and arguments of the 
same nature, in one and the same way. I have answered 
that it only placed the matter in a worse position than be- 
fore, because, if the withdrawal of the cup had been, as an 
article of faith, absolutely and unavoidably necessary, then 
that very necessity would be its apology and defence, ne- 
cessity is excuse sufficient. But when it is argued that it is 
merely a matter of ecclesiastical arrangement — that it is not 
unalterable — that the cup can be restored, then it only in- 
creases the impiety and sacrilege of the act, which is so 
continued against the plain words and example of Christ 
himself, of his apostles, and of the whole primitive church. 

A further argument may sometimes be urged to the ef- 
fect, that the withholding the cup cannot be rightly re- 
garded as a matter of discipline. The commandment of 
Christ is clear and express, and his example is unquestion- 
able. The use of the cup, therefore, in the sacrament is a 
matter of obedience to him. And it never was in the pro- 
vince of the church, to set aside his commandments. We 
read indeed of some who " set aside the commandments of 
God, that they might keep their own traditions." But they 
were not the church of Christ. 

The other and second class of persons in the church of 
Rome, to whom I have referred, as always endeavouring to 
escape from an argument by some subtle and unworthy and 
miserable device, usually meet the argument in a different 
way. They first admit, that our Lord administered, and 
the apostles received the sacrament in both kinds, and then 
they add, that it was because the apostles were priests, and 



398 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



that it was as priests it was so administered to them, and 
thus they argue, that this original institution is no reason 
for the administration of the cup to the lay-members. 

I have given two answers to this, — 

I have told my opponent with as much courtesy as 
possible, that I felt he urged it with the hope of perplex- 
ing me, rather than with his own belief of its conclu- 
siveness — that he knew that the practice of the church of 
Rome was never to administer the cup to either priest or 
layman — to any communicant whatever — that he knew that 
the officiating priest, as a part of the sacrificial ceremonial 
of the Mass, received the cup himself, but that he never 
administered it to any one, whether priest or layman ; that 
even at the more solemn occasions, when, as in the High 
Mass, the officiating priest is assisted by one or two others, 
still even to them he does not administer the cup, so that 
if any number of priests were in attendance for the commu- 
nion, he would not administer the cup to any.* This is 
the law of the church of Rome. How different from that 
of Christ and His apostles ! If this law of the church of 
Rome had been in the mind of Christ, when He instituted 
this sacrament, He should have reserved the cup entirely 
to Himself, and not administered it at all to any of the 
apostles ! The fact that He did administer it to them all, 
desiring them all to drink it, — i( drink ye all of it," 
and the fact that c£ they all drank it," are demonstrative 
against the novelty of half-communion in the church of 
Rome. 

I have found this mode of meeting the subject have its 
effect. I have never known even an attempt to answer it. 

* The cup is ministered to a Bishop at his consecration. 



HALF-COMMUNION. 



399 



The other reply which I have sometimes given and which 
is well-known, is, that if our Lord did indeed administer this 
sacrament to the apostles in their character of priests, then 
the laity have nothing whatever to do with it. If it was 
only as priests, they received the cup, and consequently 
they who are only laymen have no right to the cup, then 
also it was only as priests they received the bread, and con- 
sequently they, who are only laymen, have no right to the 
bread, And thus we arrive at the conclusion that the laity 
have no right to receive this sacrament at all ! 

The principal argument however, upon which the mem- 
bers of the church of Rome rest, and on which the Council 
of Trent endeavours to justify her practice, is that which is 
usually called — the argument of concomitance. This argu- 
ment is, I believe, urged sincerely, and seems to be the 
great dependence of every class of mind among them. 

It deserves to be fairly and fully stated. 

It is founded on a belief of Transubstantiation. In that 
doctrine they teach that the bread is literally and substan- 
tially changed in its nature and properties into the body and 
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that the wine is in like 
manner changed as to all its natural properties, into His 
blood and body. It is thus held that in the consecrated bread 
there is naturally and truly the blood as well as the body, 
and that in the consecrated wine, there is the body as well 
as the blood. Holding thus that both are contained in the 
bread, they argue that to receive in one kind is sufficient, 
inasmuch as by receiving in either the bread or the wine, 
no matter which, the communicant receives together both 
the body and the blood. This process of reasoning is 



400 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



usually called — the argument of concomitance, and is the 
chief argument on which half-communion is defended. 

The natural answer to this is a denial of Tran substantia- 
tion on which it is founded. I prefer however dealing dif- 
ferently with it; I do not like to seem always denying their 
assumptions, and therefore I say in reply, that it is a matter 
of indifference to me, so far as half-communion is con- 
cerned, whether Transubstantiation be true or untrue. 
That dogma, whether true or untrue, does not touch the 
real question, and I have therefore, for argument's sake, 
often admitted that doctrine, and still pressed my argument 
against half-communion, as strongly as before, feeling 
that my argument was equally cogent, whether Transub- 
stantiation was received or rejected — believed or denied : 
That my argument was, that the half-communion of the 
church of Rome, was contrary to the original institution 
of our Lord — contrary to the example of our Lord — con- 
trary to the plain language of Holy Scripture — contrary 
to the practice of the apostles — contrary to the custom of 
the primitive church. This was my argument as against 
this practice of giving only the bread, without the cup ; 
and this argument stands clear and independent of any be- 
lief or disbelief of Transubstantiation ; Half-communion may 
be or may not be consistent with Transubstantiation, but 
certainly it is not consistent with the original institu- 
tion by our Lord ; and the idea that Transubstantiation or 
concomitance justifies this Half-communion, may well lead 
to the inference, that neither Transubstantiation nor con- 
comitance were the belief of our Lord, or of His apostles, 
or of the primitive church, inasmuch as they administered 
the sacrament in both kinds, as if the idea of Transubstan- 



HALF- COMMUNION. 



401 



tiation or concomitance had never entered their minds. It 
may lead to all this inference, but it certainly does not 
touch my argument, which is — that this practice of adminis- 
tering in only one kind — administering only the bread and 
withholding the cup — is inconsistent with the practice of 
our Lord, of His apostles, and of the primitive church. It 
may be consistent with Transubstantiation, but it is not 
consistent with the original institution of our Lord. 

To this, I have never known a reply that deserved a 
moment's consideration. As long as the argument is kept 
to our Lord's original institution — and to the necessity of 
adhering to that institution — as long as the argument is 
kept to this, there can never be a reply. 

The history of this controversy supplies a new and ad- 
ditional argument against the practice of the church of 
Rome, and I have often used it with effect, at least I have 
known it exercise a considerable influence on some minds. 
Transubstantiation, which had been agitated in the church 
for above two centuries before, had been declared to be 
the doctrine of the church of Rome for the first time at 
the Council of the Lateran in 1225. The not unnatural 
result of that doctrine was to generate very widely the 
idea of the non-necessity of receiving in both kinds. The 
dogma of Transubstantiation and the practice of half-com- 
munion went thus hand in hand ; mutually supporting and 
justifying each other. But in the fourteenth century the 
casual meeting of Jacobel de Mysa and John de Leyden, 
led to results, which then were little anticipated. These 
men, zealous and learned and active clergymen, were de- 
vout members of the church of Rome, and were earnest 
believers in Transubstantiation. Like most members of 



402 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

that church, they imagined that our Lord's discourse in 
the vi. of John was designed to apply to the sacrament. 
In conversing on that remarkable discourse, they were im- 
pressed with the fact that it describes the drinking of the blood 
as being as necessary as the eating of the flesh. They dwelt 
on the words, " Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man 
and drink his Mood, ye have no life in you, whoso eateth 
my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life." In these 
words they observed that they could have no life unless 
they drank the blood, as well as ate the flesh. And the 
promise of life was only to those who drank the blood, as 
well as ate the flesh. The awful warning is against those 
who do not receive both. The gracious promise is only to 
those who receive both. Applying this language, as these 
men did, to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, they at 
once drew the inference that the cup was as necessary as 
the bread — that there was no promise to half- communion 
— and that in order to have eternal life they must commu- 
nicate in both kinds. In this they found confirmation in 
the language of the Apostle, where he alludes to this sacra- 
ment. "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, 
ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore 
whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, of the 
Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of 
the Lord. But let a man examine himself and so let him 
eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth 
and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to 
himself, not discerning the Lord's body." — 1 Cor. xi. 
26—29. 

The inference from this language is, that one kind is as 
essential as the other — that both are essential to the integ- 



HALF- COMMUNION. 



403 



rity of communion — and that whatever be the blessings, 
privileges, and graces, connected with this sacrament, they 
are connected with it only as received in both kinds, drink- 
ing of the cup, as well as eating of the bread. These men 
under this conviction, taught that it was necessary to salva- 
tion that all communicants should receive the bread and 
then receive the cup, and they immediately introduced into 
the churches at Prague the administration of the sacra- 
ment in both kinds. The city of Prague and all Bohemia 
soon declared in favour of the restoration of the cup. This 
awakened, as by an earthquake, as by a volcanic eruption, 
the whole energies and resentment of Rome. And the un- 
happy resolve of the Papal Court to put down this begin- 
ning of the Reformation, not by the holy weapons of chris- 
tian argument, but by the brute force of arms, kindled the 
flames of a civil war of a century's continuance. It was 
in the midst of this controversy, that the Council of 
Constance was convened — a Council celebrated for that 
decree by which it claims for the church of Rome the 
right to go against the words of the Lord, to alter the 
original institution of Christ and to depart from the acknow- 
ledged practice and teaching of the apostles and the primi- 
tive Church,* and a Council stained by treachery and blood, 

* The reasons assigned in the Council by sage and venerable men, for 
so strange an alteration of the institution, were surpassingly extravagant, 
and some of them amusing enough. One pleaded that there was danger 
of spilling the cup, and the spilling the blood of God was an evil of too 
great magnitude to be perilled by restoring the cup. A second argued 
that so many persons had bad breaths, and it was shocking to persons of 
piety, as well as untasteful to persons of refinement, that such impure 
breaths should pollute the blood of God. Another pleaded, that as men 
then wore their beards unshaven, it was an intolerable sacrilege that the 



404 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



as having induced John Huss and Jerome of Prague, the 
reformers of that age, to attend the council on the solemn 
faith of a safe conduct, and then ordered both to be burned 
at the stake. But " the blood of the martyrs" has ever 
proved "the seed of the Church." The people of Bohemia 
refused to submit to the decision of the Council ; frighted 
and indignant at the treacherous burning of their leaders, 
they flew to arms, and never laid down their arms till they 
secured their object — the restoration of the cup in the 
sacrament ! To this day the Emperor of Austria, as king 
of Bohemia, has the right to receive the cup in the sacra- 
ment. 

As all these people were devout believers in Transubstan- 
tiation — devout believers in the notion of concomitance, it 
is evident they did not regard that dogma as an adequate 
reason for the withdrawing of the cup. They felt that our 
Lord instituted this sacrament in both kinds — that the 
Apostles administered it in both kinds — that the primitive 
church communicated in both kinds — and that they received 
no real sacrament whatever, when they received only half 
the sacrament. It was in their eyes a sacrilegious dividing of 
the sacrament, and a rendering it as useless as it was lifeless. 

The answer usually made to this — besides the argument 
of concomitance already noticed — is that in the Scripture 
narrative we frequently read of only bread without any 
mention of the cup ; as when the two disciples were at 
Emmaus with our Lord. " He was known of them in 

blood of God should be wasted as well as defiled by adhering to the 
beards of men. And for this and other wise and discreet causes, these 
grave and reverend fathers recommended the cup to be taken from all th 
women, who have no beards at all ! 



HALF- COMMUNION. 



405 



breaking of bread," and again when the Apostle was at 
Troas, " upon the first day of the week, when the disciples 
came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." 
On passages like these, they argue that there is no mention 
of the cup, and that, therefore, we may suppose that the 
cup was not deemed an essential of the sacrament. 

The answer is easy. The expression of cc breaking bread," 
was a common phrase expressive of any social meal, and by 
a figure usual in all languages and in all countries, a part is 
put for the whole. If among us we speak of taking dinner, 
it does not necessarily imply the absence of wine, or if we 
speak of taking tea, it is not intended to imply that there 
was nothing to eat with it. In precisely the same way the 
phrase of "breaking bread" merely implied taking a meal, 
and the christians of the apostles' days used constantly 
to have a table in common, — a table supplied by the more 
wealthy members, at which they with the poorer members 
used to sit and eat together in sign of christian love and 
fellowship. St. Paul alludes to this in 1 Cor. xi. 20, and 
says, " When ye come together therefore into one place, 
this is not to eat the Lord's supper." These meetings at 
one common table, — these reunions of holy brotherhood 
among the christians, — these reunions for " breaking of 
bread" and "eating," were thus not for the administration 
of the sacrament, but for other purposes altogether ; and 
besides this, there is a further consideration, which shews 
that this argument is not urged sincerely by our adver- 
saries, namely, that if these words do indeed refer to the 
sacrament, and if indeed it be argued that in mentioning 
only " breaking bread," they imply the absence of the cup 
from the sacrament, then they will prove too much, for they 



406 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



will prove that the priest as well as the communicants had 
no cup, but only the bread, — that there was only the bread 
and no consecration of wine, which according to the church 
of Rome is essential to the service, — so essential as that 
without it there is no sacrament and no Mass. And thus 
their own argument on the mention of bread without the 
mention of the cup, only proves against themselves, that 
there could have been no allusion to the sacrament in these 
passages. 

But now to conclude this subject. There are four dis- 
tinct accounts of the original institution of this sacrament 
in the Holy Scriptures. In every one of these, the commu- 
nicating in the cup is as prominent, as the communicating 
in the bread. Whatever be the blessings, privileges, and 
graces annexed by the promises of Christ to this sacrament, 
belong to it only as He instituted it ; and when the church 
of Rome has altered this sacrament, — has disobeyed His 
command, — has refused to follow His example, — has re- 
nounced the practice of the apostles, and has departed from 
the practice of the primitive church, she has no right to 
expect the blessings, and privileges, and graces connected 
with the sacrament. On the other hand the Protestant 
churches, adhering to the very form as Christ instituted it, 
without alteration or mutilation, possess the true sacrament, 
and enjoy not a half-communion merely, but a whole com- 
munion, and on the faith of the promises of Christ, claim 
the blessings and privileges and graces belonging to it. 



PURGATORY. — I. 



SCENE BY A BED OF DEATH AN AWAKENED ROMANIST A BELIEF 

IN PURGATORY — THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ROME RES- 
PECTING SIN AND PURGATORY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST THE ALONE 

MODE OF REMOVING SIN THE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE THE 

ROMISH DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE GUILT AND PUNISHMENT 
OF SIN THE TRUE MESSAGE OF THE GOSPEL THE INCONSIS- 
TENCY OF PURGATORY WITH EXTREME UNCTION. 

I was sitting one day in the cottage of an humble and reli- 
gious man. His wife and children were like himself alto- 
gether under the influence of religion. His days were now 
drawing to their close, and everything promised a happy 
and a glorious sunset to his life. He was always a happy 
Christian, one whose thoughts as to the past were ever cheer- 
ful in the remembrance of mercies, and, as to the future, were 
invariably joyous in the anticipation of the promises. I 
was in conversation with him and his family on the subject 
of his approaching death, and on the way in which the 
sting of death was removed, and its fears changed to hopes, 
and its terrors annihilated before the realization of the pro- 
mises. I had touched on the words of St, Paul, where he 
said " I have a desire to depart and to be with Christ." 
Phil. i. 23. And again where he said, "I am ready to be 



408 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have 
fought the good fight, I have kept the faith, I have finished 
my course. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of 
righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give 
me in that day, and not to me only, but also to them that 
love his appearing." 2 Tim. iv. 6. While speaking on 
this, many of the neighbours came in and sat down to 
hear. Among these were several members of the church 
of Rome. 

There was soon collected a little congregation, of about 
some twenty or twenty-five persons ; and wishing to use 
the occasion, I opened my Bible and read a few verses, and 
spoke freely in connection with our previous conversation. 
Having dwelt on the happy deaths of true Christians expect- 
ing to pass to their rest and their glory on their departure 
from the body, a remark was made by a Roman Catholic 
who seemed very thoughtful and earnest. It was to the 
effect that a man could not die happy, who was expecting 
to be immediately conveyed to the fires of purgatory. This 
observation attracted the marked attention of all other 
Roman Catholics present, and naturally led me to contrast 
the faith of the Protestant with the faith of the Romanist in 
the matter of approaching death. One anticipating a change 
from this world to the joys of Heaven, the other expecting 
a change from this life to the fires of Purgatory, — one looking 
forward to death, as the entrance upon a world of happiness, 
and the other anticipating the moment of death, as a plunge 
into all the horrors of Purgatorian fire. I dwelt on this 
contrast ; and as both Protestants and Romanists were pre- 
sent, the contrast was vivid enough in its effects on their 
countenances. I could appeal personally to both parties. I 



PURGATORY. 



409 



could appeal to their own experience and observation among 
their families and friends ; some dying happy, and rejoicing 
in the hope of Heaven ; others dying fearful and anxious in 
the prospect of Purgatory. 

One observation led naturally to another, and the ques- 
tions, earnestly but most respectfully put to me by the 
Roman Catholics present, led me to enlarge on the true 
nature of religion, and on the comforting character of 
Christianity. The religion of revelation pours a flood 
of comfort around the couch of sickness, and spreads a 
beautiful halo of light around the bed of death. The sick- 
ness is but for a little while, and the death is but for a 
moment, and then unutterable glories are streaming as a 
shower of splendour before the eye. Death is swallowed 
up in victory. The grave is spoiled of its prey. One is 
but the antechamber of heaven ; the other is but the usher 
that conducts us to the presence. As he stands upon the 
threshold of eternity, the dying Christian catches, as it 
were, brighter and happier glimpses of the glories that 
never fade. He no longer shrinks from the grave, or trem- 
bles at death, but, as he hears its footfal, his cheek flushes 
with high hopes ; and, as he feels its cold hand, his heart 
beats high with longings, for his hour is come. He sees 
as it were, the gates of heaven ; he hears, as it were, the 
songs of angels ; he feels, as it were, the balmy breezes of 
the skies ; and his eye brightens, and his cheek flushes, 
and his heart throbs, and his tongue proclaims, "I am 
ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at 
hand; I have fought a good fight, I have finished my 
course, I have kept the faith : henceforth there is laid up 
for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the 

T 



410 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



righteous judge, shall give me at that day ; and not to me 
only, but unto all them also that love His appearing." 
The dying Christian is the happy, the rejoicing, the 
triumphant Christian. He sees his crown ; he sees his 
throne ; he sees his inheritance ; and he pillows his head 
in peace, for he knows he will awaken on the bosom of his 
God; and the last song is the song of triumph — "O death, 
where is thy sting ? O grave, where is thy victory ? " 
But far and away from this, is the death of the Romanist. 
He sees in the grave but the antechamber of the fiery 
furnace, and sees in death but the usher that conducts him 
to a tormenting Purgatory. He lies on the bed of sick- 
ness ; yet that sickness is more endurable than the fiery 
furnace. He lies on the couch of agony ; yet that agony 
is more tolerable than a tormenting Purgatory. He has no 
lights of an approaching glory to illumine his darkness. 
He has no hope of an opening heaven to cheer his spirit. 
He stands shrinking, trembling, resisting, till his eye is dim, 
and his cheek is pale, and horrors upon horrors gather on 
his heart ; and he dies with thoughts of Purgatory instead 
of thoughts of Heaven, and visions of suffering instead of 
visions of glory. The Christian dies, expecting that hour 
to tread the gates of heaven. The Romanist dies, expect- 
ing that hour to feel the flames of Purgatory. One dies 
rejoicing, the other dies lamenting. Oh ! perish the doc- 
trine, that can thus mar the hopes, and blast the visions of 
the dying Christian ! 

Some time was consumed in replying to questions, some- 
times simple, sometimes subtle ; but the few and emphatic 
words of the sick man, in support of my statements of the 
glorious hopes of the Christian had a powerful effect. They 



PURGATORY. 



were few and simple, but earnest and true. We all joined 
together in prayer, and I withdrew. 

A few days after this, I learned that one of the Roman 
Catholics present on this occasion, had been affected to an 
unusual degree, and in an unusual manner — that his mind 
had been so disturbed and his feelings so agitated by some- 
thing that had been said, that he could not rest that night 
in his bed — that he was in such a state that he felt obliged 
to rise and seek the open air to cool his burning head — 
that he spent the remainder of the night sitting on the cold 
rocks, or walking disturbedly on the mountain-side, where 
his cottage stood — that since then his whole thoughts 
seemed absorbed and lost in the one subject of his soul's 
salvation — that he believed himself a lost man, without 
hope and without help — and that so completely was he 
overwhelmed by these feelings, that he was unable to attend 
to his ordinary work and necessary occupation. 

I saw at once that it was necessary to see this man. It 
is true that he was a member of the church of Rome, but 
it seemed no less true, that some new and strong conviction 
had laid hold upon his mind. I thought that there might 
be an opportunity in the then state of his feelings, of lead- 
ing him to the real sources of peace. I sent for him. 

When he came, he looked worn and haggard — wan and 
pale. He had the appearance of wakeful nights and trou- 
bled days. He had evidently suffered much mentally. 
Whether it was remorse of conscience at some special sin, 
or a deep conviction of his unholy state in general, or a 
shrinking horror of his expected future, it was impossible 
for me to say ; and it was some time before I could learn 
anything from him. He was silent for a few moments after 
T 2 



412 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



I spoke to him, but it was because he was unable to speak. 
A nervous choking seemed to stifle his words, till a few 
kind and gentle expressions from me seemed to act upon 
him. He burst into a flood of tears and wept and sobbed 
as a child. I could not but feel for the poor fellow. He 
was young, and in the prime of life, a tall and handsome 
man — was married and had two children — had a small farm 
which he cultivated with his own hands — and now the 
strong man seemed as feeble and powerless as a little child. 

After he had recovered, he told me that all he had suf- 
fered arose from what I had said on the subject of Purga- 
tory, — that till that evening, when he heard me speaking 
about death and the after-death, he had always believed in 
a Purgatory — that Purgatory was instituted for Catholics, 
and that hell was reserved for the Protestants — that he left 
the Protestants to their own fate, and always looked for- 
ward to Purgatory for himself; that he knew, and God 
knew, and no man knew so well as himself his own sins, 
and that he had been taught to look forward to suffering 
for a time in Purgatory, till he could atone for all and be 
saved in the end. And now, said he, in a paroxysm of 
feeling, you say there is no Purgatory ! 

The poor fellow seemed to find it difficult to convey his 
precise meaning. His words seemed to imply a deep and 
passionate sorrow, that there was no Purgatory. He 
seemed to wish for it as a comfortable doctrine. I was 
obliged to question him as to his meaning. 

He afterwards explained that he was distracted between 
two different things which I had stated — that when I had 
shewn there was no Purgatory, but only Hell after death 
for the sinful and unrepentant, he then felt there was no 



PURGATORY. 



413 



hope for him — that he had hoped that by suffering in Pur- 
gatory, and having masses and prayers said for his soul, he 
might in the end be saved : but now he could hope this no 
longer. There was no Purgatory. It was gone — gone for 
ever! And there was — now — nothing— -but Hell! He uttered 
the awful words in a slow, solemn, low tone, that gave 
them an appalling significance. And a shudder seemed to 
pass over his whole frame. He paused and gazed as if 
looking intently into another world. 

I then spoke very gently — I felt keenly for him — to re- 
mind him, that when I had told them that there were no 
purgatorian fires after death, there yet was something else 
infinitely more powerful, and infinitely more efficacious for 
purging away sin before death. 

O yes, yes, he exclaimed — the blood of Jesus — the blood 
of Jesus, " The blood of Jesus Christ His Son, cleanseth 
from all sin." Those were the very words you read from 
the Bible. They sunk into my very heart, and I remember 
them well. And this, he added, was the second thing that 
was on his mind. You have taken away all hope, he said, 
by taking away purgatory, and then you raised my hopes — 
O so high ! — by speaking of the blood of Jesus. 

This led to a long conversation. 

In order to a full understanding of all that passed, it will 
be well to state here the doctrine of the church of Rome, 
respecting purgatory. I had spoken long to him, on the 
power and preciousness of the blood of Christ, and I have 
seldom, if ever, witnessed the message of the gospel receive 
a more full and free and hearty response, than seemed to 
come from his heart. He seemed at once to believe, receive, 
and rejoice in it, but he would have me go over the argu- 



414 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



ments, he had before heard from me against the being of a 
purgatory. That this may be the more easily understood, 
the following digression may be inserted here. 

The doctrine of the church of Rome is, that there is a 
heaven and a hell — that one is for the eternal happiness of 
the saved, and the other for the everlasting misery of the 
lost. And in all this the creed of the church of Rome is 
identical with the creed of the church of England. But 
besides these, the church of Rome holds that there is a 
third place — a place characterized by two properties ; one 
being, that it is a place of torment, and the other being, that 
it is a place of purgation. To this place, from its supposed 
efficacy in purging away sin, they have given the appellation 

of PURGATORY. 

They describe it as a place of torment. But as to the 
nature of its torments, the advocates of the church of Rome 
seem to be divided. The opinion generally entertained is, 
that Purgatory is a region of fire, and that the souls un- 
dergo all the sufferings of fire. This too is the opinion em- 
bodied in the catechism of the council of Trent. " There 
is," says that catechism, " also the fire of Purgatory, in 
which the souls of the just are purified by punishment for 
a stated time, to the end that they may be admitted into 
their eternal country, into which nothing that defileth, en- 
tereth." Part i. c. 6. But some of the more modern ad- 
vocates of that church, feeling themselves hard pressed by 
our objections, have asserted that it is not quite certain — 
that it is not infallibly settled — that Purgatory is a region 
of fire. Some maintain that it is a fiery region, where the 
soul is tormented with fire ; others, that it is a region with- 
out fire, where the soul is tormented with horrible dread. 



PURGATORY. 



415 



Both parties agree, however, that it is a region of suffering 
almost as horrible as Hell ; the chief distinction being, that 
Purgatory was but temporary, while Hell was eternal. 

They describe it as a place of purgation. To this place 
are consigned two classes of persons. 1. All who die under 
venial sins ; that is, all who have not confessed and done 
penance for their venial sins. These persons are consigned 
to this place, to undergo the measure of punishment due to 
such sins. 2. All who have committed mortal sins, and have 
confessed them, but have not performed all the enjoined 
penance. These persons are consigned to this place of 
torment, to undergo what remains of the punishment sup- 
posed to be due to such sins. Both these classes are sup- 
posed to settle the balance due upon their account, in the 
suffering of Purgatory. 

The principle or doctrine, upon which these opinions are 
founded is this : They hold that there are two classes of 
sins. 1 . Venial sins. These are supposed to be sins that 
are little sins — trivial sins ; such as little lies and petty 
thefts. They are called venial, that is, pardonable, as 
being too trivial to alienate the love of God, or, as they 
express it, to " break charity ; " and which therefore God 
may very well pardon, without any great stretch of His 
mercy, provided the sinner undergoes a suitable penance 
here or hereafter. 2. Mortal sins. These are supposed 
to be great sins — sins so great, as deservedly to damn 
the soul in hell ; and if not confessed, absolved and satis- 
fied for by penance in this world, assuredly to be followed 
by damnation in the world to come. 

It is no part of my present object, to examine or expose 
the tendency of this most unscriptural doctrine of mortal 



416 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



and venial sin, though it lies at the root of one half the 
practical errors of the church of Rome. My present ob- 
ject is to state what the principle and doctrine is, upon 
which the theory of Purgatory is founded. They hold 
respecting these two classes of sinners, — they hold, respect- 
ing all sin, that if confessed it may be satisfied for by " tem- 
poral punishment " here or hereafter. Instead of regarding 
the punishment of the repentant sinner, as being laid by 
faith on Jesus Christ, according to the words of the prophet 
— <e He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised 
for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon 
Him, and with His stripes we are healed" — Isaiah liii. 5. 
— instead of thus regarding the sufferings of the believer 
as borne for him by Jesus Christ, when He endured the 
agony in the garden, and the sufferings in the judgment- 
hall, and the death on the cross — instead of this, they 
hold that the believer, however repentant of his sins, 
must undergo the "temporal punishment" himself, which 
is to satisfy for his sins. That "temporal punishment " is 
explained of the suffering of the body in penance in this 
life, or the suffering of the soul in the pains of Purgatory 
in the life to come. Those persons, therefore, who are 
guilty of mortal sins, which have been confessed, but which 
have not been satisfied for by penance, and those persons 
who are guilty of venial sins, whether confessed or not, 
are alike consigned to Purgatory, in order that by their 
suffering there they may satisfy for their sins. 

It will at once be seen, that by an ingenious complication 
of the subject, a subtle advocate of the church of Rome 
may perplex an unwary opponent. But still, the result that 
should remain on the mind should be, that — excepting those 



PURGATORY. 



417 



who are doomed to hell, all others must pass through the 
sufferings of Purgatory, until they have balanced their ac- 
count of sufferings. These persons are supposed to be in 
communion with the church of Rome. The region of Pur- 
gatory is their special domain ; while the members of the 
Protestant church are carefully excluded. A Romanist in- 
deed may enter there, but the destiny of the Protestant has 
been somewhat profanely described, as that of men who 
must " go farther and fare worse." 

Thus much being premised, our conversation will be more 
intelligible. 

I reminded him of the truth that had already so strongly 
affected him ; namely, that the blood of Jesus Christ was the 
true means of atonement for the sinner. I read the words ; 
u Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the 
world" and again, "The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son s 
cleanseth from all sin" And I observed that if Christ has 
taken away the sins of his people there can be no need of a Pur- 
gatory to take them away again, and that if the blood of 
Christ cleanseth from all sin, emphasizing the words " all 
sin," there can be no sin, venial or otherwise, remaining to 
be chased away in the fires of Purgatory. 

He at once exclaimed, that the two things were inconsis- 
tent. They could not both be true. And he added ear- 
nestly, that his hope must be in the blood of Jesus Christ, 
— Blessed be His holy name ! 

I said that he was right, but that he might see how full 
and clear the Word of God was on the subject, I w T ould 
read some other passages, that shewed that Christ and only 
Christ, by His blood, took away our sins. I then continued, 
We read that <( we have redemption through His blood, the 
T 5 



418 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



forgiveness of sins." — Eph. i. 7. We read of Him as 
" having forgiven all trespasses, Hotting out the handwriting 
of ordinances that was against us " — Col. ii. 14. We read, 
<f Every branch that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may 
bring forth more fruit " — John xv. 2. We read, " How 
much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eter- 
nal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your 
consciences from dead works to serve the living God ? " — 
Heb. ix. 14. We read, " He is faithful and just to forgive us 
our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" — 1 John 
i. 9. We read of those in glory, as those who "have 
washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the 
Lamb." — Rom. vii. 14. Here, and in innumerable places 
of Holy Scripture we read that the purging away of sin — 
the purgation of the soul from sin, is the special result of 
the blood of Jesus Christ. It is described in those places 
as a " forgiveness," as a " blotting out," as a. purging," as 
a " cleansing," and as a " washing away of sin." There is 
no reference whatever to any other method of purging away 
sin, but the blood of Jesus Christ. And the power of that 
blood, — in other words, the efficacy of the atonement on 
the cross, is described as extending to " all trespasses/' and 
"all sins," and "all unrighteousness," and therefore, as 
extending not only to mortal, but also to venial sins. So 
when once the believer is cleansed, purged, washed, forgiven 
by Jesus Christ, there can remain nothing on the soul to be 
cleansed, purged, washed, or forgiven through the fires of 
Purgatory. To suppose with the church of Rome, that some- 
thing remains to be purged away in the fires of Purgatory, 
is practically to impeach the blood of Christ ; for it is all 
one with supposing that all the sin was not purged away by 



PURGATORY. 



419 



the blood of Christ ; it is all one with supposing that the 
blood of Christ was not in itself sufficient in value or in 
power ; it is all one with supposing that the blood of Christ 
had done the work by halves, and was not adequate to do the 
whole, but required the help of Purgatory to complete it ; 
it is all one with supposing that Purgatory is capable of 
perfecting that which Christ could not perfect, and therefore 
is more efficacious than the blood of Christ ! 

It will easily be believed that my companion entered 
most fully into this process of reasoning. He seemed to 
have received into his whole soul, the truth of a perfect and 
complete atonement and forgiveness in the sacrifice of 
Christ. And as verse after verse was read, his eye would 
brighten, and his cheek glow, and his countenance smile, 
while his exclamations, at onetime " the precious — precious 
blood ! " at another, " the words are sweeter than music," 
and again, " that is the blessed — blessed truth," — all showed 
that the Holy Scriptures were doing their destined work. 

After a time he told me that he had always been taught 
— adding that it was in the catechism, — that when the 
Scriptures said that the Blessed Lord took away sin and 
forgave sin, it only meant that He took away or forgave the 
guilt of sin, but that He never took away the punishment of 
sin. And thus, he added, the church of Rome teaches us 
that although we have in Jesus the forgiveness of the guilt 
of our sins, yet we have not the forgiveness of the punish- 
ment that is due to our sins. And that thus, while Jesus 
takes away the guilt, it is Purgatory, and penance, and 
absolution and the like, that take away the punishment. 

I replied to this, by saying, that there was no ground for 
this in Holy Scripture, nor indeed, I added, in common 



420 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



sense. If true, it would mar the whole gospel ; for that 
which a sinner fears is the punishment of his sins, and the 
gospel would cease to be a gospel, if it did not bring the 
glad tidings of salvation from the punishment, as well as 
from the practice and the guilt of sins. But what is the 
distinction between the guilt, and the punishment of sin ? 
We shall understand this better by supposing a case. We 
suppose a traitor has plotted treason against the sovereign ; 
his guilt is proved, and the verdict given ; his sentence is 
pronounced, and he is doomed to die a traitor's death. We 
further suppose the sovereign holds the prerogative of mercy, 
and declares the pardon, the free pardon of the traitor. The 
traitor relents, his heart is filled with gratitude, his eye is 
flooded with tears of joy, his pardon is sealed, and he ex- 
pects his liberty and his life. But, when expecting freedom, 
he finds his chains more closely rivetted than before ; when 
expecting life he finds himself brought to the scaffold, and 
the executioner is there, and the axe is there, and the 
parade of a traitor's death is there. He demands the free- 
dom and the life, his sovereign's pardon had given him. He 
is answered, that the sovereign remitted the guilt of hi? 
treason, but did not remit the punishment of his treason! 
Would not the fated man cry out upon such a mockery as 
this? Would not his severed head find a voice, — would not 
his headless body find a tongue, — would not every thing 
within him cry out in burning reclamation against such a 
mockery of pardon ? And yet this spectral shadow of pardon 
— this unreal fiction and pretence of a pardon — this cruel 
mockery is ascribed by the church of Rome to Jesus Christ ; 
instead of that full and free forgiveness — forgiveness full as 
the waves of the ocean and free as the winds of heaven, 



PURGATORY. 



421 



which He has purchased in His blood. " I have blotted 
out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and as a cloud thy 
sins," — Isaiah xliv. 22. " He will subdue our iniquities, 
and Thou will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea." 
— Mic. vii. 19. "I will be merciful to their unrighteous- 
ness, and their sins and iniquities I will remember no more." 
— Heb. vi. 12. This is the forgiveness of heaven. It re- 
mits the guilt, it remits the penalty, it annihilates the sin ; 
and anything short of this, any remitting of the guilt while 
there was a retaining of the punishment, would be as useless 
and as cruel a mockery of the sinner as it would be unwor- 
thy of Him, who is the Prince of the kings of the earth. 

But, I continued, we have not done with this doctrine. 
There is no truth in the whole of Revelation more certain, 
than that the suflerings of Jesus Christ are accepted instead 
of the sufferings that we deserved. He was foreshadowed 
in all the types of the law, where the sacrificial victim was 
brought to the altar instead of the transgressor. The victim 
was accepted in the stead of the transgressor, the victim was 
slain in the stead of the transgressor, the blood of the victim 
was accepted for the blood of the transgressor, the death 
of the victim for the death of the transgressor ; the throes, 
the struggles, the sufferings of the victim were accepted for 
the throes, the struggles, the sufferings of the transgressor. 
The whole ceremonial represented a vicarious atonement. 
The law demanded the suffering of the transgressor, but 
the law was satisfied to accept the suffering of the sacrificial 
victim in his stead. This was the type of Him, who is our 
sacrificial Victim, " the Lamb of God that taketh away the 
sin of the world." He has been our sacrificial victim ; His 
suffering, His blood, His death, has been accepted as a vi- 



422 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



carious atonemont for our suffering and blood and death. 
It is therefore, the prophet says, " Surely He hath borne 
our griefs and carried our sorrows ; yet we did esteem Him 
stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But He was 
wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our 
iniquities ; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, 
and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep 
have gone astray ; we have turned every one to his own 
way, and the Lord hath laid upon Him the iniquity of us 
all." — Isa, liii. 4 — 6. This is the Gospel. And this it is, 
that, while it comforts and encourages the believer, con- 
founds that fiction, which would teach us that Jesus Christ 
remits the guilt without remitting the punishment of sin. 

In all my experience, I have seldom if ever seen a more 
marked or emphatic reception of this cardinal feature of the 
gospel. It seemed as if the poor fellow had been gazing 
upon the sun in its brightness, and his eye was so dazzled 
and filled with its glories, thst even when he looked away, 
it seemed to be seen in everything. The several passages 
of scripture were like fresh rays of clear and beautiful light 
streaming in upon the vision. He seemed as if he could 
never be weary of taking them in, and he made me repeat 
them again and again, and said, he could no longer doubt, 
but believe, that the death of Christ on the cross, was suf- 
ficient for all sins, mortal and venial, and for both the guilt 
and the punishment of sin. If Jesus on the cross, has 
borne our sufferings, surely we shall not have to bear them 
again. 



PURGATORY. — II. 



A CONVERSATION TO RECLAIM A CONVERT THE INTERVAL BETWEEN 

DEATH AND THE JUDGMENT THE QUESTION AS TO THE ABODE 

OF THE DEAD DURING THAT INTERVAL THE MIDDLE REGION OF 

PURGATORY SCRIPTURE REVEALS ONLY HEAVEN AND HELL 

ONE MODE OF SOLVING THIS QUESTION AS TO THE RIGHTEOUS 

DEAD THE NON -NECESSITY OF THE MIDDLE STATE ADMITTED BY 

THE CHURCH OF ROME THE SCAPULARIANS ANOTHER SOLU- 
TION AS TO THE UNGODLY DEAD FIVE REGIONS IN PURGATORY. 

I have already narrated a conversation on the subject of 
Purgatory, with a young man, who was very much in earnest. 
His earnestness led him at once to abandon the church of 
Rome. He became a frequent attendant at our cottage- 
lectures, and a regular worshipper at our parish- church. 

A great effort was to be made to reclaim him. Every- 
thing was done and said by friends and neighbours and 
priests to bring him back to the church of Rome. He 
stood firm ; and often, when he was unable to answer their 
arguments, he used to take his stand on some great and 
broad truth of the Gospel, and bring the argument to this, 
as to a test. He explained it to me thus. When they 
argued for some penance or mortification, and he could not 
answer as he wished, he called to mind, how Christ had 



424 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



endured everything for him; — when they argued for the 
sacrifice of the Mass, and he could not confute them as he 
could wish, he called to mind that the death of Christ was 
the only true sacrifice ; when they argued for praying to 
the Virgin, and he could not answer them as was desirable, 
he called to mind that Christ was the one Mediator between 
God and man — and thus, as he told me, he was enabled to 
fortify his own mind, and repel every argument, even when 
he could not answer it. He said he felt that their argu- 
ments were wrong — that their doctrines were wrong — that 
their practices were wrong — he felt, although very often 
he was unable to prove, that they were wrong. 

He stated to me one day that he had been much per- 
plexed with one argument which he could not answer. 
They had asked him — where are the souls of the dead 
between the day of death and the day of judgment ? They 
had said that they must be in a third place, which was Purga- 
tory. He felt they were wrong, but he could not answer 
them. And he stated that a large number of his friends 
and neighbours proposed coming to me to argue it with 
me in his presence, for they thought they could convince 
him thus fully, by my inability to solve the difficulty. 

It was soon arranged that they should come to me at 
my next cottage lecture. 

The attendance was very large, as was usual when any- 
thing particular was expected. The majority were Roman 
Catholics. A small knot or party of these sat together in 
a corner, and seemed under the leadership of a little man 
whom I well knew as a controversalist of a very sharp and 
bitter kind. He was clever ; and the confidence of his 
manner seemed to have an influence over a certain class of 



PURftATORY. 



425 



the peasantry. I had frequently met him before — had 
argued with him — and soon found, that if I led him out of 
the beaten track, out of the common arguments on any 
point, he was perfectly powerless. He was not a pious 
man, though a great and warm advocate for the church of 
Rome : being in reality more fond of politics than of religion. 

When I had concluded my lecture, I said, that I under- 
stood that some of the Roman Catholic neighbours wished 
to ask me some questions about Purgatory, and that I 
wished to give them the opportunity. I would therefore 
say, that one objection we entertained against that doctrine 
is, that it is not revealed in Holy Scripture. We read there 
of a heaven. We read of a hell. But we never read 
there of a Purgatory. It is scarcely possible, I said, to 
open the Holy Scriptures without finding some allusion 
either to the Heaven of the saved, or the Hell of the lost. 
Our Lord has himself frequently alluded to the world be- 
yond the grave, and he always refers to heaven or to hell, 
and describes the one as " eternal life," and the other as 
"everlasting punishment." He makes no mention whatever 
of a Purgatory, precisely as if there was no such place in 
existence. Our Lord says not a word respecting it. The 
Holy Scriptures reveal nothing about it ; whether we read 
the writings of the prophets — the books of the evangelists 
— the epistles of the Apostles — the discourses of our Lord 
— or the preaching of the Apostles, or the visions of Reve- 
lation, . while we find repeated mention of heaven and of 
hell, we have no allusion whatever to Purgatory. The 
whole volume assumes the existence of these two regions ; 
but so far as Purgatory is concerned, the Holy Scriptures 



426 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



are as silent as if it never existed — as if the sacred writers 
had never heard of it. 

Our little friend here said, that he acknowledged that the 
Holy Scriptures often mentioned both Heaven and Hell, 
and that they never mentioned Purgatory by name. But, 
he said, looking about with confidence, although they do 
not mention Purgatory by name, they have the thing itself. 
And it is of no consequence about the name, if the thing 
itself is there. Now to show that the thing itself is there, 
he would appeal to myself whether there was not another 
place — a third place for the souls of the dead ? He would 
ask me or any Protestant in the world — Where were the 
souls of the dead between the day of their death and the 
day of judgment ? They were not in Heaven, and they 
were not in Hell. Where were they, — unless in a third 
place, which the catholic church calls Purgatory ? 

This question was proposed in a manner that showed 
that he felt the difficulty in his own mind. And it was 
apparent, from the manner in which it was received, that a 
clear answer was very necessary. I therefore begun, by 
saying, that, even if there was a third region, it would not 
prove that that region was a Purgatory. Our objection 
went, not so much against a third place, as against a purging 
place — a place supplying another means of purging away 
sin beside the blood of Christ. This is our real objection. 
He at once acknowledged the difference. 

I then said, that there were two ways of dealing with 
it. And I asked his careful attention. 

I. I have first to ask you, I said, or any Roman Catholic 
present, where are the souls of the Virgin Mary — of the 
Apostles and all the saints, from the day of their death to 



PURGATORY. 



427 



their resurrection ? The pope is constantly canonizing 
new saints. Where are the souls of St. Dominic and St. 
Francis — of St. Cecilia and St. Catharine, and of the long 
catalogue of saints in the Litany ? Their bodies are all in 
their graves ; but where are their souls ? Where are they ? 

He said, he supposed they were in heaven. 

I then added, asking, whether it was not true, that in 
the church of Rome they confess to " all the saints" — they 
pray to " all the saints," as if they were in heaven, in the 
presence of God, and therefore able to intercede and mediate 
for them. I ask, therefore, as their bodies are in their 
graves on earth, where are their souls between their death 
and the day of judgment ? 

He said again, that the church taught they were in 
heaven . 

I replied at once, that this proved, on their own shewing, 
that the souls of God's saints, God's holy children, can be 
removed at once to heaven, while their bodies are in their 
graves, waiting their resurrection. And all His believing 
people are His saints or holy ones, loved by Him, redeemed 
by Christ and sanctified by His Spirit ; so their souls may 
be translated at once to heaven. There is no necessity for 
their stopping in some middle or third region. They are 
at once translated, like the Virgin Mary, like the Apostles, 
like all the other saints, to heaven, and there they enjoy as 
much happiness as disembodied spirits are capable of en- 
joying. 

The effect of this was unmistakeable. Natural and simple 
as it was, it told with wonderful effect. It seemed to pour 
a new light into the minds of the hearers. They looked 
one at another. The Protestants seemed extremely amused. 



428 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



A portion of the Roman Catholics seemed to feel it decisive, 
arguing that the saints, when the pope canonized them, 
must be in heaven, or they could not help us ; and others 
evidently were hopelessly perplexed. The little leader 
himself seemed puzzled, and unable to say a word. I 
therefore continued to say that — 

— The souls of God's children, or saints, or believers, as 
they were variously called in Holy Scripture, were translated 
to heaven, and there enjoyed as much happiness as disem- 
bodied spirits were capable of enjoying. There the souls 
remained till the resurrection of the great day, when there 
will be the reunion of the soul and body, and the fulness 
of happiness is consummated ; and on the other hand, the 
souls of the unrighteous are transferred to hell, and there 
they endure as much misery as disembodied spirits are 
capable of enduring, until, by the resurrection at the day 
of judgment, the reunion of soul and body shall capacitate 
them for all the fulness of their destined miseries. 

This is the answer I have usually given to the question, 
saying, that the souls of the righteous, of the redeemed 
are there in heaven, where the Romanists themselves say 
that the souls of the saints reside. On their own shewing, 
there is no necessity for a middle or third region. And 
undoubtedly there is much in the language of the Holy 
Scriptures to justify this answer. It is said of the righte- 
ous in his death, that " the righteous is taken away from 
the evil to come ; he shall enter into peace ; they shall rest 
in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness." — Isaiah 
lvii. 2. Again : "we are always confident, knowing that, 
whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the 
Lord : (for we walk by faith, not by sight :) we are conn- 



PURGATORY. 



429 



dent, 1 say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, 
and to be present with the Lord." — 2 Cor. v. 6 — 8. And 
again : " For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But 
if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour : yet 
what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt 
two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ, which 
is far better." — Phil. i. 21 — 23. And again : " Here is 
the patience of the saints : here are they that keep the 
commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. And I 
heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed 
are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth : Yea, 
saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours : and 
their works do follow T them." — Rev. xiv. 12, 13. These 
Scriptures, beyond all doubt or question, imply a state of 
happiness and blessedness, as immediately consequent upon 
the death of the righteous. They imply that the death of 
the righteous conducts him to peace and rest, — and this is 
not Purgatory ; that it conducts him into the presence of 
Christ, — and this is not Purgatory ; that it conducts him 
into a state better or happier than this life, — and this not 
Purgatory ; that it conducts him to such a state, that it is 
more desirable to depart than to remain, — and this cannot 
be Purgatory ; and yet farther, we read the words of the 
Redeemer on the cross to the repentant thief, " This day 
shalt thou be with me in paradise " — Matt, xxiii. 43 — and 
this cannot be Purgatory, for it is expressly described as 
the inheritance of the righteous, and the place where is the 
tree of life. — Rev. ii. 7. All these and countless parallel 
Scriptures seem to imply, that when the righteous die, 
their souls are taken to their rest, and are in the presence 
of their Saviour and their God, and enjoy all the happiness 



430 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



of which disembodied spirits are capable, till the resurrec- 
tion of the last day, when body and soul united shall enter 
on the full fruition of their destiny of glory. Further than 
this, I added, the Holy Scriptures do not assert, and there- 
fore, further than this, we ought not to question. 

I then asked him, whether he was not a Carmelite or 
Scapularian, and whether there were not others present, 
who belonged to the same religious confraternity ? 

Several voices responded in the affirmative. 

I then opened a little volume, which is much circulated 
among the members of the order ; and which contains the 
privileges and the indulgences belonging to the members. 
I read the following passage : — 

" John XXII., Sovereign Pontiff, found himself greatly 
harassed by a schism, which the Emperor Louis IV., 
wished to raise in the church. Once having risen early, 
according to his custom, to pray, and kneeling devoutly, 
his mind being somewhat elevated, there appeared to him 
the glorious Queen of heaven. She kindly consoled him 
and promised him her protection and assistance against his 
enemy, enjoining on him besides, that he should favour, 
confirm, give efficacy to what she, the Mother of God, had 
obtained in heaven, from her divine Son, Jesus Christ ; 
that he should publish to all the faithful the precious trea- 
sure of the Indulgences of the sacred Scapular. And 
that she herself, as a most loving Mother, would go down 
into Purgatory every Saturday to free such saints as she 
should find there, to carry her holy habit, subjoining 
thereto, the obligations which those would be obliged to 
perform who should wear it, to merit so great and so sin- 
gular a privilege. The whole is minutely related and con- 



PURGATORY. 



431 



firmed by John XXII. in a Bull. In this Bull the fol- 
lowing words, spoken by the Virgin Mary to the Pontiff 
occur. From the day that they, i. e. the Fathers and 
Brothers of the Order of Mount Carmel, depart from this 
world and pass into Purgatory, /, their Mother, will gra- 
ciously descend on the Saturday next after their death, and I 
will free every one who I shall find in Purgatory, and I will 
conduct them to the holy Mount of Eternal Life."* 

The reading of all this caused varied feelings among my 
hearers, some of them laughed, while others, who belonged 
to the confraternity, exclaimed that it was all as I had read 
it — that it was in their own books, but they seemed not 
to divine my object in the citation. 

It is a pity, said one of them in an under-voice that sa- 
vored of the comic, — It is a pity to die on any day, barring 
Friday night, if the Blessed Virgin takes us out on Sa- 
turday. 

The tone of his voice, and the manner of the man, had 
its natural effect on a people so susceptible of the ludicrous, 
and a whole volley of odd things were said, that could only 
be said in an assembly of Irish peasants. 

When I succeeded in quieting them, I asked, whether 
this belief of the Carmelites or Scapularians did not imply 
that the members of the order left Purgatory for Heaven, 

* This Order of Carmelites, or Scapularians, is very numerous in Ire- 
land, embracing all the more religious members of the Church of Rome, 
among the lower classes. The book from which the foregoing is extracted, 
was printed in Dublin for the use of the Order in 1 826, and purchased by 
myself at their office. I also have since then purchased it in French, pub- 
lished in Paris, and in 1841 it was published in Italian at Rome. I pur- 
chased it there in 1845. — A Volume so widely published has some import- 
ance. 



432 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



for " eternal joy in paradise/' as is said in one place, and 
for " the holy Mount of Eternal life," as is stated in another, 
and whether this did not prove, that their souls can go to 
Heaven before the day of judgment ? 

This process of reasoning, though perhaps unsatisfactory 
to some minds, was all-powerful among our hearers on this 
occasion. Our little friend who was to lead the opposition, 
was himself a Carmelite, and wore the Scapular, and he fell 
marvellously in the estimation of his supporters. 

He was perfectly perplexed. If I had gone on arguing 
with him in the usual way, he would have proceeded with 
the usual answer, as contained in their controversial books. 
But here, having admitted that all the saints were in Hea- 
ven, and that the Carmelites and Scapularians could pro- 
ceed to heaven before the day of judgment ; his argument 
failed on his own shewing, as to the necessity of a third 
or middle state. I felt that this was the moment for ano- 
ther mode of dealing with the subject — one that I have 
seldom found to fail among Roman Catholics. 

II. I addressed the little leader of the party gently , and said 
that as he had asked me where were the souls of the dead, 
between their death and the day of judgment, and as I had 
answered him to the best of my power, so now I thought 
that I might ask him the very same question — Where are 
the souls of the righteous, between their death and the day 
of judgment? 

The whole of our hearers declared that this was fair, — 
that he must answer me. 

He answered without hesitation — in a third place — Pur- 
gatory. 

But, said I, my question refers to the interval between 



PURGATORY. 



433 



their release from Purgatory, and the day of judgment. 
Where are they after their release from the third place — 
after their release from Purgatory ? In the Catechism 
of the Council of Trent, it is said that they remain in Pur- 
gatory only a " stated time." And my question is, as to 
where they are after that stated time is completed ? 

There was no answer ; and the silence had more effect on 
my hearers than any eloquence. 

I then reminded them that they offer Masses to relieve 
the souls in Purgatory — that they purchase Masses, and 
give endowments, and make bequests to release the souls 
from Purgatory — that convents and friaries and monas- 
teries and churches and cathedrals, have been founded 
and endowed in order to have masses offered to release 
the souls in Purgatory — that Purgatorian societies are very 
extensively established, through which, on the payment of 
certain subscriptions, the souls of friends and relatives are 
released by Masses from Purgatory. Now we ask — what 
becomes of those souls, for which all these Masses are 
offered, and by which they are released from Purgatory — ■ 
what becomes of them, and where are they from the day 
of their release to the day of judgment ? If they are still 
in this third place called Purgatory, after all the money 
that has been paid, then are the monks and friars and 
priests of Rome, the worst defrauders the world has ever 
seen ; for as defrauding is described as raising money under 
false pretences, these men raise money in order by Masses 
to release the souls from Purgatory, whereas according to 
this, they are never released at all ! But, if they are released 
from Purgatory, then I ask, where are they from the day 
of their release to the day of judgment ? 

U 



434 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



I have often seen my opponents amusingly perplexed by 
this enquiry. They said at first, that the souls were 
removed to heaven. And when I reminded them of their 
previous argument, that souls could not enter Heaven till 
after the day of judgment, they retraced their steps, and told 
me that these souls were in another region, not of suffering 
like Purgatory, nor glorious like Heaven — a fourth place ! 

And thus the difficulty involved in their question to us, 
entangled themselves far more, for they were obliged to 
admit, that during the interval they are in some other 
region — some fourth region — which is not Purgatory, but in 
which they live in all the happiness of disembodied spirits. 

But I have further asked — where are the souls of the 
wicked, according to their principles, during the interval be- 
tween the death and the judgment ? There is no Purga- 
tory for them ; and therefore I asked — where are they during 
this interval ! I have asked this question an hundred times 
of the advocates of the church of Rome, and I never yet 
could obtain an answer. They will not say that they are 
transferred immediately to hell, without waiting for the re- 
surrection-day ; for that would supply us with an argument 
from analogy, to prove the righteous are in like manner 
translated immediately to heaven, without waiting for the 
resurrection-morn. They will not say that they arc in Pur- 
gatory ; for that would imply that the damned are under- 
going a purgation for Heaven, and would finally be saved. 
And if they are neither in Purgatory nor in Hell, where are 
they ? so that in whatever light we view this question — 
where are the souls of the dead during the interval between 
the day of death and the day of judgment ? it is certain, 
that however they had hoped by it to have entangled us, it 



PURGATORY. 



435 



has entangled themselves in ten-fold more inextricable diffi- 
culties. If it compels us to suppose, (as it does not,) in ad- 
dition to heaven and hell, the existence of a third region as 
a receptacle of the soul from the day of death to the day 
of judgment, it will compel them to suppose a fourth region 
as a receptacle of the souls of the righteous from the day of 
their release from Purgatory to the day of judgment ; and 
additionally to this, a fifth region as the receptacle of the 
wicked from the day of death to the day of judgment ! 

In the present conversation, I took care to lead to this, 
with the view of setting it before the Roman Catholics pre- 
sent. After therefore I had asked, — Where are the souls of 
the wicked between their death and the day of judgment ? 
and received no reply, I said, that on his own shewing, there 
must be not only a middle or third place, but seven places. 

1 . I asked him, whether, in the church of Rome they did 
not believe in a Purgatory, where the souls of the righteous 
depart for their purification ? This is one region. 

2. Again, I asked, whether they do not suppose there is 
then a place where the souls of the righteous depart after 
the Masses have released them from Purgatory, and where 
they remain till the day of judgment ? This is the second 
region. My opponent at once assented to this. 

3. I then asked, whether they do not suppose there is 
next a heaven, whereunto the souls of the righteous enter 
on the judgment-day? This is the third region. They 
assented to this also. 

4. Again I asked, whether they do not farther suppose, 
that there is a place for the souls of the wicked, where 
they remain from the day of death to the day of judg- 

U2 



436 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



ment, different from the Purgatory of the righteous. This 
is the fourth place. This was assented to. 

5. And lastly, I have asked whether they do not then 
suppose there is a Hell, where the wicked are cast after 
the judgment of the last day. There is the fifth region. 
This was at once acknowledged. 

It thus appears, I concluded, that on the principles of 
the church of Rome there must not only be three, but five 
regions in the spiritual world, and that where they had 
hoped to entangle me they were inextricably entangled them- 
selves ; and besides these, the catechism of the Council of 
Trent describes two other places, under the names of Linibus 
Patrum, where rested the souls of the Old Testament 
worthies, and of Limbus Infantum, where rest the souls of 
little children ; we, I added, on our principles, can at once 
cut the Gordian knot, for we hold that the souls of the 
righteous are in heaven, enjoying there all the happiness of 
which such disembodied spirits are capable, and waiting 
there for re-union with their glorified bodies, in order to 
obtain a capacity for all the flood of glory that awaits them ; 
and we hold, on the other hand, that the souls of the 
wicked are in hell, as was said of Dives in the parable, 
" in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torment," suffering 
there all that disembodied spirits are capable of, and are 
reserved there for re-union with their resurrection bodies, 
in order to the endurance of their destiny of woe. 

While stating this argument, especially when specifying 
the several regions — the seven regions instead of Heaven 
and Hell, there was a play of countenance among the Pro- 
testants present, which shewed a lively sense of the ludi- 
crous. They felt that the tables were completely turned on 



PURGATORY. 



437 



our little friend, and that where he thought to have puzzled 
me by his favourite questions, he was himself inextricably- 
perplexed. The feeling among the Roman Catholics was 
of more importance, — it was a varied one. But I believe 
that it was universally thought that it had been far better 
for his cause that our little friend had never asked his 
question. Among some of them, there was great thought- 
fulness and gravity. Among others, there was an appear- 
ance of bitterness and disappointment; while the keen sense 
of the ludicrous, so characteristic of the peasantry, found 
vent in some pleasant sallies at his expense. 

I saw that my object was well-nigh gained, as much so 
as I could have anticipated ; — that the partizans of the 
church of Rome were silenced, if not convinced ; — and I 
resolved to improve the occasion by a more useful and pro- 
fitable mode of dealing with the subject. I therefore 
changed my manner — asked their serious and calm atten- 
tion, and then went over the process of argument given in 
a former conversation, setting forth the power of the blood 
of Christ for the remission of all our sins, and shewing 
from the Holy Scriptures, that His sufferings and death 
were the atoning sacrifice for all who believed ; and that 
therefore there was no need of the fire of Purgatory. This 
gave me an opportunity of setting forth the great truths of 
the Gospel ; and I am bound to say, that the Roman Catho- 
lics present listened with reverent attention to those glorious 
truths. I could not have desired a more attentive or ab- 
sorbed congregation. And some there were, who seemed 
at the time completely melted and subdued under the love 
of Christ. 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OP ROME. 



THE IDEAL OF THE CHUKCH OF CHRIST OF THE CHURCH OF ROME 

THE TWOFOLD VICARIATE, TEMPORAL OVER NATIONS, AND SPI- 
RITUAL OVER CHURCHES HER CLAIM AS MOTHER AND MISTRESS 

OF ALL CHURCHES UNTRUE AS A MATTER OF FACT WHETHER 

ST. PETER, OR CHRIST, BE THE ROCK MATTHEW XVI. 13 HOW 

THIS CONCERNS THE ROMAN CHDRCH WHETHER ST. PETER WAS 

BISHOP OF ROME WHETHER ANT SUPREMACY IS SECURED BY 

THIS TO THE ROMAN CHURCH WHETHER ST. PETER ALONE WAS 

TO FEED THE FLOCK JOHN XXI. 15 THE TRUE HEAD OF THE 

CHURCH IS CHRIST WHETHER HE NEEDS A VICAR ON EARTH. 

The ideal of the church of Christ is grand and magnificent. 
It is this ; — that the Lord Jesus Christ has passed away 
into heaven ; — that having ascended into heaven He is 
there enthroned, first as the King of kings, and so pos- 
sessing all authority over and above all the kingdoms of 
earth ; and then, as the High Priest of His church, and so 
invested with authority over all churches upon earth; — that, 
in keeping with both these prerogatives, it was prophesied 
that the kingdoms of the earth should become the king- 
doms of the Lord, and that all people should come and 
worship before him ; — and that the Lord Jesus Christ in 
the heavens is thus the King of tings and the High Priest 
— the King-Priest of the world. 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 439 



In all this part of the ideal the Protestant Christian and 
the Roman Catholic are in accord. It is at the next stage 
or platform of the splendid edifice that we separate. 

The Romanists, in their ideal of the church, hold that 
our Lord being in heaven, requires a deputy or Vicar to 
represent him, and bear his office on earth ; and that He 
has appointed the Bishop of Rome as His Vicar. It is 
apparent that, as such, the Vicariate represents not only 
his office as High-Priest, but his office as King of kings 
— not only the spiritual authority over the church, but the 
temporal authority over the kingdoms of the earth. 

This is the true ideal of the church of Rome ; — that the 
Bishop of Rome, being the Vicar of Christ, possesses the 
authority of Christ on earth — an authority extending over 
the temporal kingdoms as well as over the spiritual churches. 
It is true that this Vicariate has of later years been divested 
of nearly one-half of its original, namely, the temporal 
power of Christ ; but it was universally recognized in the 
middle ages ; and even long after the Reformation, was re- 
cognized among the states still adhering to the church of 
Rome. It was in the exercise of this supposed Vicariate 
of the temporal power of Christ, that the pope deposed 
sovereigns and appointed kings at his will ; and required of 
them to raise their armies and carry on wars for the pur- 
poses he prescribed. It was in the eKercise of this claim 
that he pronounced the deposition of Henry VIII. and 
declared his dethronement of Queen Elizabeth. It was in 
the exercise of this claim he ceded, by a mere grant of his 
own will, the crown and kingdom of Ireland to Henry II. 
of England ; and in after times, gave, by a free grant from 
himself, the crown and realm of England at one time to 



440 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



the King of Spain, and at another time to the King of 
France ; and that he took the crown and realm of England 
from King John, and then restored them as gifts from 
himself. It was in the exercise of this assumed office that 
the pope ceded all the East Indies as a possession to the 
King of Portugal, and in like manner granted all the West 
Indies as a free gift to the King of Spain. The principle 
on which these grants were made, and this power claimed 
is expressly stated in the papal Bulls, namely, " that to 
the Vicar of Christ and successor to St. Peter, belongs 
every land on which the Sun of righteousness has shone." 

All this portion, however, of the ideal is passed away. 
While the temporal powers of Europe were petty dukedoms 
and baronies, ever at war with each other, the Roman 
Pontiff was able to control them. He freely deposed one 
and appointed another, and by absolving the oaths of alle- 
giance in one case, and promising a cession of territory in 
another, he was able to make his power felt throughout 
Europe. When however, these petty states became ab- 
sorbed into larger and mightier kingdoms, the sovereigns 
became conscious of their powers, and gradually shook off 
this temporal authority of the Popes, and the result has been, 
that universally this assumption of being the Vicar of Christ 
in his office as king of Kings, has been denied and rejected 
by every state in Europe. The temporal sceptre has thus 
passed from the Pontifical hand. 

The church of Rome therefore new comes before us, speak- 
ing no longer of her temporal Vicariate, but only of her 
spiritual Vicariate, and proclaims herself the mother and 
mistress of all churches. 

The following are the words of her creed, " I acknow- 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 441 



ledge the Holy Catholic and apostolic Roman church, the 
mother and mistress of all churches, and I promise and 
swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, the successor 
of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus 
Christ." 

When reasoning on this article of her creed, I have sta- 
ted that this was a question of fact — not a question of re- 
mote research or abstract reasoning or refined learning, 
but simply a question of fact, and must be determined as 
all other questions of fact. I have therefore asked — Is it 
a fact that the church of Rome is the mother church of 
Christendom ? It is evident from the Holy Scriptures, that 
the church of Jerusalem, not the church of Rome, is the 
mother of all churches ; — that our Lord commenced His 
church at Jerusalem — that He commanded his disciples to 
go through the cities of Judah alone to preach His gospel, 
and lay the foundations of His church — that he specially 
directed His apostles to remain at Jerusalem, until the Holy 
Ghost should descend upon them, and give them power ; 
and accordingly they there waited till the power came, and 
they were enabled to preach, and " the Lord added to the 
church them that should be saved," — that thus the gospel 
was first preached, and the church first formed at Jerusa- 
lem ; and so, when the apostles went every where founding 
the churches, they returned to Jerusalem to consult as to the 
controversies that arose — that this church of Jerusalem 
was thus the first church, — was that from which all the 
others have sprung, and so she is the mother church of all 
Christendom ; and therefore it is not a fact, but a clear and 
certain untruth, that the church of Rome is the mother of 
all churches. The apostle Peter first opened the gospel and 
,U 5 



442 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



founded the church at Jerusalem ; if afterwards he founded 
the church of Rome, then on their own shewing, it is — pain- 
ful and strong as the word may be — a known and positive 
falsehood on the face of her creed, to say the church of Rome 

is " THE MOTHER OF ALL CHURCHES." 

To this, when I have conversed with Roman Catholics, 
they have never made a reply, beyond the suggestion, that 
there was probably some other and different meaning for 
the phrase, when the article was determined. 

I have answered this, by saying, we must interpret the 
language of the creed in its simplest and obvious sense ; — 
that the article did not pause with this untruth, but pro- 
ceeded with another, namely, that the church of Rome is 
" the mistress of all churches ; " if by this language it 
is meant to convey that she ought to be, or that she wishes 
to be mistress of all churches, it is intelligible, though not 
very modest. As the article at present stands, it is untrue. 
It is untrue as a simple question of fact. She is not the 
mistress of all churches. She is not the mistress of the Eng- 
lish, the American, the Swedish, the Dutch, the Danish, 
the Prussian, the Greek, the Russian, the Asiatic churches. 
The majority, the numerical majority of the professing 
Christians of the world reject and deny her authority. The 
Eastern churches, the Greek churches, the Protestant 
churches deny her authority. They all hold their own 
independence, and reject the pretensions on her part to 
authority over them. They reject with one voice her pre- 
tended Vicariate of Jesus Christ. It is therefore a broad 
and plain untruth inserted as an article of the creed of the 
church of Rome ! 

To this it is sometimes answered that she does not 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 443 



regard these as churches at all — that they are out of the 
pale of Christendom ; and that she speaks in her creed 
only of those, who are in communion with herself, and who 
can only be regarded by her as true churches ; and that all 
she intends in the article of her creed is that she is a 
mother and a mistress, not of all the churches, but only of 
those which are in communion with her. 

I replied, that evidently this was not the intention of her 
creed. Her object was that at a time, when so many 
national churches, as Germany, Sweden, Holland, Switzer- 
land, England, broke away from her authority, she might 
still assert her authority over them, claiming, as she still 
does, authority over all baptized persons as her subjects. 
This was apparently her object, as it is involved in the 
supposed supremacy of Saint Peter, and of the popes, his 
supposed successors. 

It is here the advocates of Rome think themselves able 
to take their stand. Forced from every other ground of 
argument on which they would urge her claim as the 
mother and mistress of all churches, and driven back be- 
wildered and broken, by the charge of inserting two plain 
and admitted untruths in her creed, they invariably fall 
back upon the assertion of the supremacy of St. Peter, and 
the popes his supposed successors. 

In my intercourse with Roman Catholics there was no 
question so frequently discussed, and none on which at 
first they had such unbounded confidence, as this question 
of the supremacy of St. Peter, and of the church of Rome. 

In justification of this assertion, they adduce one Scrip- 
ture. The whole superstructure of Roman supremacy with 
all the claims and assumptions dependent on it, is erected 



444 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



on that one Scripture ; and therefore seeing that it has to 
support on its single shoulder the whole Atlas of Romanism, 
it ought assuredly to be clear — strong — decisive. When, 
however, we examine this we find that it does not advance 
them one hair's breath in their argument ; and that they 
might as well hope to suspend the Vatican in the air by a 
spider's web, as hope to support the superstructure of 
Romanism on such a passage as this. 

The words are in Matt. xvi. 13 : — " When Jesus came 
into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, 
saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am ? 
And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist : 
some, Elias ; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am ? And 
Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the 
Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto 
him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona : for flesh and 
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which 
is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, 
and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against it." Their argument on 
these words is, that our Lord here constituted St. Peter as 
the rock or foundation of the Church of Christ — that St. 
Peter was the founder and first Bishop of the Church of 
Rome — and that he granted the privileges of the Church of 
Christ to the Church of Rome for ever. 

This argument, it is apparent, consists of three distinct 
parts or propositions. It is a chain consisting of three 
links. On this chain the whole system of Roman supremacy 
and Roman authority is suspended. It well behoves these 
links to be strong, when they are to support so vast a 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 445 



burden. The slightest defect or weakness in any one would 
be the destruction of all. 

No one has been much in conversation with Romanists 
without being often reminded of this Scripture, as if they 
never thought it capable of any other interpretation ; and 
as if surprised at any question being raised respecting it. 
They seem really and honestly to believe that it is sufficient 
to justify all the claims of the Church of Rome. 

I have asked my friends to state logically, or at least 
precisely, the nature of their argument from it. 

It was accordingly said, that Jesus Christ — before re- 
turning to heaven-— appointed Peter as the rock upon whom 
His Church was to be built ; — that therefore the Church of 
which Peter was bishop, must be alone the Church of Jesus 
Christ — that this Church was the Church of Rome. 

I said in reply, that this argument involved several pro- 
positions, each of which was questionable in itself, and I 
suggested our examining them seriatim. 

I. The first proposition — the first link in the chain — was 
that our Lord appointed that the Church should be built on 
Peter as on a rock, according to the words " Thou art Peter 
— -and upon this rock I will build my church, &c." 

I said, that I questioned this statement altogether — I 
said our Lord Jesus Christ was himself the rock upon which 
His church was built, and that it was a palpable misinter- 
pretation of this Scripture to suppose it was Peter. I then 
argued as follows. 

Our Lord Jesus Christ is frequently described in Old 
Testament Scriptures under the figure of a rock or a stone. 
On the one hand He is called " the Stone laid in Zion" — 
Isa. xxviii. 16, and the " Corner-stone," and the " Stone of 



446 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



stumbling." On the other hand He is called " the Rock 
of salvation," and the Rock of our strength," and " our 
strong Rock." Both these terms are applied to Him in a 
vast variety of places, and are designed to point out to us, 
that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, is 
the foundation of our hope and the ground of our salvation. 
It is in this spirit that David says, " the Lord is my Rock 
and my Fortress and Deliverer ; the God of my Rock, in 
Him will I trust." And again, "Who is God save the 
Lord ? and who is a Rock save our God ? " And again, 
" The Lord liveth, aud blessed be my Rock, and exalted be 
the God of the Rock of my salvation " — 2 Sam. xxii. 32, 
47. And in the same way Moses sings, " Ascribe ye great- 
ness unto our God ; He is the Rock, His work is perfect, 
and all His ways are judgment " — Deut. xxxii. 4. 

Such a use of these terms, pointing to Jesus as the solid 
and firm foundation of His Church and people, occurring so 
frequently in the Old Testament, prepares us for a similar use 
of them in the New Testament Scriptures. Accordingly our 
blessed Lord uses the following language. "Jesus saith unto 
them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which 
the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the cor- 
ner : this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our 
eyes ? " This was spoken of Himself, who, under the figure 
of the son in the parable, was rejected by the husbandmen, 
and was to be avenged upon those who thus acted. And 
thus our Lord applies this term to Himself. St. Paul gives 
it the same application, " Ye are built upon the foundation 
of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being 
the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building, fitly 
framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord " 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 447 



— Eph. ii. 20. This Scripture shows the full force of the 
term, as applied to Christ, implying that He was the "rock," 
which forms the foundation of His Church ; as the apostle 
says in another place, "as a wise master-builder, I have laid 
the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every 
man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other 
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus 
Christ."— 1 Cor. iii. 10, 11. 

It is not easy to conceive how such plain Scriptures 
should not be deemed adequate to prove Jesus Christ to be 
Stone or " Rock," which forms the foundation of the 
Church. There is scarcely a place in all the Scriptures, 
that does not assist in illustrating that great truth. And 
yet it is held in the church of Rome, that St. Peter, and 
not Christ, is the "rock." It is happy, however, that we 
have St. Peter's own judgment upon this ; from which we 
learn, that so far from claiming this honour to himself, he 
ascribes it altogether to Christ. The Scripture to which I 
refer, is as follows : — "Wherefore, also, it is contained in the 
Scripture, Behold I lay in Sion a chief corner-stone, elect, 
precious ; and he that believeth on Him, shall not be con- 
founded. Unto you therefore, which believe, He is pre- 
cious ; but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which 
the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the 
corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, 
even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient." 
1 Pet. ii. 6 — 8. In these words, the apostle Peter cites two 
predictions. One is, — " Therefore thus saith the Lord God, 
Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a Stone, a tried 
stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation ; he that 
believeth shall not make haste." — Isa. xxviii. 16. This 



448 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Scripture is expressly applied by St. Peter to the Lord Jesus 
Christ ; thus giving to us his sanction for saying, that 
Christ is the " Foundation " and " Stone." The other is, 
— " He shall be for a sanctuary ; but for a stone of stum- 
bling, and for a rock of offence." — Isa. viii. 14, This 
Scripture is also expressly applied by St. Peter to the Lord ; 
thus giving his authority for believing, the Lord Jesus 
Christ is indeed the "Stone" and the "Rock," of which 
the Holy Scriptures speak. 

This is a point of some interest ; for the whole argument of 
the church of Rome depends on the position, that St. Peter, 
and not Christ, is the " Stone" or " Rock" upon which 
the church is built. Now here we have the express judg- 
ment of St. Peter on this very point ; for here he himself 
plainly ascribes it to the Lord Jesus Christ. This enables 
us to deal with that only Scripture, to which the advocates 
of Rome refer. — (i When Jesus came into the coasts of 
Csesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom 
do men say that I, the Son of Man, am ? And they said, 
Some say that thou art John the Baptist ; some, Elias ; and 
others, Jeremias, or one of prophets, He saith unto them, 
But whom say ye that I am ? And Simon Peter answered 
and said, thou art the christ, the son of the living 
god. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art 
thou, Simon Bar-jona ; for flesh and blood hath not revealed 
it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I say 
also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not pre- 
vail against it." — Matt. xvi. 13 — 18. 

In these words we find St. Peter making a true confes- 
sion : " THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 449 



god." These words are the key to the whole passage. 
This great and glorious truth is the foundation of all Chris- 
tianity. If this be true, then all is true. If this be false, then 
all is false. This is the great fundamental truth, — the truth 
firm as "the Rock of ages, — the truth upon which the 
whole Church of Christ is built. It is, that Jesus is " the 
Christ, the Son of the living God." When, therefore, the 
apostle had uttered this great truth, — when he had spoken 
this true confession, our Lord arrests his words, and says, 
" Upon this Rock " — upon this truth which is firm as a 
rock — upon this fact, that I am the Messiah, the Son of the 
living God — upon this which the Spirit of God hath revealed 
to you, — "upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the 
gates of hell shall not prevail against it." This — this is the 
true purport of the words of our Lord ; not making St. 
Peter the " rock," but making Himself — making His own 
Messiahship — His own Sonship to the living God as the 
great foundation of His Church. 

To take any other view of this Scripture, is to strike at 
the very foundation of the church. It is clear that the apos- 
tles never understood them as ceding a supremacy to Peter, 
for immediately afterwards, chap, xviii. verse 1, we find them 
disputing which of them was to be the greatest ! This dis- 
pute could never have arisen, if the apostles had believed 
that our Lord's words conferred supremacy on Peter. The 
thing would have been impossible. And to interpret it with 
the advocates of the church of Rome, would be against the 
words themselves. Our Lord's words are, — " Thou art 
Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." The 
word " this " must clearly refer to the great truth, which 
had just been spoken, and could not possibly refer to St. 



450 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Peter ; for as our Lord was speaking to that apostle, He 
could not have used the word " this," but " thee," saying, 
" Thou art Peter, and upon thee do I build My Church." 
But He says nothing of the kind. And as for that which 
the Romanists allege, namely, that the name of Peter is 
expressive of a stone, and that our Lord, caught with the 
allusion and playing on the name, said, " Thou art Peter," 
(that is, a stone,) "and on this rock I will build My Church, 
— it is only accusing our Lord of a poor and miserable pun 
upon the apostle's name ; and that at the moment when He 
was pointing to the one and only foundation of His Church. 

I have found that this exposition of this Scripture is new 
to many Romanists, and I have known several who at once 
received it as far preferable to their own. Many a mind 
candid and sincere, has unhesitatingly adopted it, and thus 
has been led to the first step of their withdrawal from the 
church of Rome. This exposition is common enough among 
us, and we think it very strange that any other should be 
adopted, but it must always be remembered that the Roman- 
ists are not generally very conversant with the Scriptures, 
and have habitually heard of Peter as the rock, and there- 
fore our exposition of the words comes with all the appear- 
ance of novelty to their minds. 

I have of course been very careful to show that this 
removes altogether the foundation on which rests all the 
claims of the church of Rome ; for if one link in the chain 
of her argument be that Peter was the rock, and if it be 
proved thus that Peter was not the rock, the whole system 
at once falls to the ground. If the Vatican be suspended 
from heaven by a chain of three links, and that this is 
one of them, and that this has failed, the result is inevitable. 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 451 



But there are many Romanists who have contested with 
me this interpretation. I cannot say that they have ever 
advanced anything beyond some play upon the name Peter, 
signifying cephas or a stone. And when arguing with such 
persons I have pressed on them — and indeed they generally 
admit it — that it may be considered questionable and uncer- 
tain which is the true meaning — that it is thus a very doubt- 
ful and uncertain text upon which good and learned men 
may fairly differ — that the Fathers of the primitive Church 
differed as widely as ourselves ; and when they have ad- 
mitted this, I have pressed on them the inference that 
thus after all, on their own admission, all the claims of 
the church of Rome rest on a Scripture of doubtful and 
uncertain meaning — one on which good and learned men 
may and have differed ! — a strange foundation for such high 
claims as supremacy and infallibility. 

II. I have then recalled the attention of my friends to 
the second proposition — to that which was the second link 
in the chain — to the statement that it was Peter who 
founded the church of Rome, and who was the first bishop 
or pope of that church. 

I argued that the proof of this proposition is absolutely 
necessary to the argument of the church of Rome. That 
necessity will be apparent thus. Supposing that for argu- 
ment's sake, we admit that St. Peter was the "rock," — 
supposing this, we yet ask, How would that admission 
prove the supremacy of the church of Rome ? How would 
it prove, that the Bishop of Rome had supremacy over the 
Bishop of London, any more than that the Bishop of Lon- 
don had supremacy over the Bishop of Rome ? How would 
it prove, that the church of Italy had authority over the 



452 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



church of England, any more than the Church of England 
had authority over the church of Italy ? In this Scripture 
there is no mention either of Pope or of Bishop, of Rome 
or of London, of Italy or of England. And therefore I 
ask, supposing we admit, that Peter was the "rock," how 
that admission would prove the supremacy and authority 
of the church of Rome over the other churches of Chris- 
tendom ? 

They freely admitted in reply to this, that their argument 
required that Peter should have been the founder of the 
church of Rome, or at least have been the bishop of Rome. 
And that therefore, the claim to supremacy and authority, 
on the part of Rome is dependent on that fact — a fact, which 
they said, was as certain as any other in history. 

I replied, that my own faith rested exclusively on the 
Holy Scriptures — that the statements of history in general 
might be true or otherwise, and my belief or disbelief of 
such statements did not affect the salvation of my soul, — 
that the statements of Holy Scripture were a matter of 
faith with me, and therefore I asked whether, in so essen- 
tial an article of faith as that Peter was bishop of Rome, 
there was any warrant whatever in the Holy Scriptures. 

The reply was a frank acknowledgment that there was 
nothing in the Holy Scriptures to prove it — that as to Peter 
having been bishop of Rome, or even as to his having ever 
been at Rome, the Holy Scriptures are silent. They said 
they were dependant for it altogether on the tradition of 
history. 

I stated that this made an article of faith dependant upon 
the testimony of fallible historians ! I added, that I denied 
altogether the statement as a matter of history. I said 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 453 



that that was not the occasion to enter on the historical ex- 
amination, but that I would at any time undertake to make 
good, two broad and strong positions. First, that there is 
extant no writer for two hundred years after the death of 
Christ, who has asserted that Peter was the bishop of Rome 
— and second, that the later writers, who mention it, derived 
it from no adequate authority, but repeated it one after 
another, all deriving it from an unauthorized statement and 
from a mistake as to the meaning of preceding writers. 
These two propositions I am able to maintain. But at pre- 
sent, my argument is connected with the Scriptures. 

I reminded my friend that he acknowledged that in the 
Scriptures there was no evidence whatever, that Peter had 
been bishop of Rome, or even had ever been at Rome in 
his life, I then added, that there was strong evidence, the 
strongest possible evidence of a presumptive kind, tending 
to prove the contrary. 

I proceeded to state the argument thus. 

In the first place, we read that it was St. Paul who 
preached the Gospel at Rome. He was taken to that city a 
prisoner. His arrival is detailed in the last chapters of the 
Acts of the Apostles. He found some Christians there, his 
preaching to them, is related, and then it is added — " Paul 
dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received 
all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, 
and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus 
Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him." — 
Acts xxviii. 30, 31. We thus learn that it was Paul and 
not Peter, who collected a church at Rome. 

In the second place, we read that St. Paul was appointed 
as the apostle of the Gentiles, as St. Peter was the apostle 



454 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



of the Jews. We read this in Galatians ii. 7 : " They 
saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed 
unto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter. 
For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship 
of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the 
Gentiles." St. Paul was therefore the appointed apostle to 
the Romans, as being a Gentile people. We have evidence 
in the Scriptures that he fulfilled his office among them ; we 
have no evidence that St. Peter ever visited them in his life. 

In the third place, St. Paul wrote an epistle to the church 
at Rome, and in the last chapter he sends his salutation to 
all the principal of the Christians there. He specially men- 
tions twenty-eight persons, but sends no salutation to St. 
Peter — makes no allusion whatever to him — pays him no 
respect ; and certainly if St. Peter was then at Rome, and 
especially if he was the Bishop or Pope of Rome, an apostle 
like St. Paul could scarcely have failed to send his saluta- 
tion, or at least make some allusion to him, in an epistle 
written to the church at Rome. 

In the fourth place, Paul, when residing at Rome, wrote 
his epistle to the Colossians. In that epistle, he makes 
mention of those Christians at Rome, who assisted him in 
the preaching of the Gospel, and comforted him in his 
troubles, when imprisoned by the rulers. After mentioning 
Tychicus and Onesimus, he adds, "and Jesus, which is 
called Justus, who are of the circumcision : these only are 
my fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, which have 
been a comfort unto me. Epaphras, who is one of you, a 
servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently 
for you in prayers." — Col. iv. 11. These alone — these 
were the only Christians that had courage to stand by him ; 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 455 

so that we may conclude, either that St. Peter shrank from 
the cause of persecuted Christianity, or that he was not the 
Bishop of Rome in the time of St. Paul. 

In the fifth place, the apostle Paul, while residing at 
Rome, wrote his second epistle to Timothy. In that epis- 
tle he alludes to his trial at Rome before the imperial 
authorities ; and he says, the Christians were so frightened 
that they all forsook him : "At my first answer no man 
stood with me, but all men forsook me ; I pray God that it 
may not be laid to their charge.' , — 2 Tim. iv. 16. Thus 
all forsook him in the hour of peril ; and therefore either 
St. Peter was not then Bishop at Rome, or he failed in faith- 
fulness, and abandoned the apostle in the hour of need. 

Here, I remarked, are five distinct evidences, and others 
of a similar nature might be added, which taken separately 
have each their own weight, and when taken altogether 
constitute a very grave argument against the assertion that 
Peter founded the church of Rome, and was the first of its 
Bishops. 

The answer to this was one for which I was prepared, as 
being so common among the members of the church of Rome, 
namely, that these Scriptures did indeed prove that Peter 
was not at Rome during the time that Paul was there ; that 
they also proved satisfactorily that Peter was not at Rome 
when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans ; that all these 
Scriptures therefore prove, not that Peter did not found that 
church, nor that he never was Bishop there, but only that 
he was not there at any time of which we have evidence in 
the sacred scripture. And that in the absence of scripture 
we have the evidence of history to support the assertion. 

I replied, that this admission was amply sufficient for 



456 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



my argument, namely, that at no time alluded in the Holy- 
Scriptures was Peter at Rome, — that at no time of which 
we possess divine evidence was he in that city, — that con- 
sequently, if his episcopacy there is to be believed, it must 
be, not on divine authority, but only on the uncertain evi- 
dence of ordinary historians, — that by consequence this 
fundamental principle of Romanism, this fundamental article 
of the Roman creed, was based on fallible, not infallible 
writers ! I then reminded him of what I had previously 
stated, namely, that alHthese fallible writers received their 
statement from one, only one originally, — that they merely 
repeat his statement, and that they did not do even this, till 
some two centuries after the death of our Lord. And thus 
a second link in the chain of this argument is defective. 

III. But I reminded my friend, that his argument on the 
place in Matt, xvi, required him to make good ano- 
ther particular, —a third link in the chain. It was that 
Peter — supposing him to have been the rock, supreme and 
authoritative over all, — did impart that supremacy to the 
bishops, who succeeded him in the see of Rome. Ordi- 
narily speaking it might be supposed that the authority and 
supremacy would have passed naturally to the surviving 
apostles, as for example to the apostle John. It could 
scarcely be believed that it could have passed to Linus, or 
Anacletus, or Clement, or whosoever is to be supposed to 
have succeeded, and that this person, of whose name all 
writers are uncertain, assumed supremacy and authority 
over all the surviving apostles, and especially of the beloved 
disciple — St. John. 

No answer was made to this. It was merely stated that 
the facts were so. 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 457 

I then pressed the point at which I was aiming. I said 
that I would for argument's sake, suppose that Peter 
founded the church of Rome, and was the first bishop of 
that see ; but I saw not how that admission could benefit 
my opponent, inasmuch as all" history testified that Peter 
founded the church of Antioch, and was the first bishop of 
that see. The first see was that of Antioch ; the second 
was that of Rome, and all the writers of the church of Rome 
acknowledge, that Peter was bishop of Antioch for some 
years before he was bishop of Rome. The question arises 
therefore as to which of these two churches, the elder An- 
tioch or the younger Rome, has rightfully inherited his sup- 
posed supremacy and authority. 

I state the argument thus. — The apostle Peter founded 
the church of Antioch ; we read in the Scriptures that he 
was at Antioch ; it is acknowledged by the Romanists that 
he was bishop of Antioch for some years ; this fact being 
undisputed, we argue, that if St. Peter was the " rock " on 
which the Church of Christ was built, then the church of 
Antioch has as much claim as the church of Rome to all the 
prerogatives of Peter. If the fact of St. Peter having been 
bishop of Rome, ensures the infallibility and supremacy of 
Rome, then will the fact of St. Peter having been bishop 
of Antioch, ensue the infallibility and supremacy of Antioch. 
The plea is as good for one as for the other ; if it holds 
valid for Rome, it must hold valid for Antioch ; and if it be 
invalid for Antioch, it must be invalid for Rome. 

My friend could give no solution of this difficulty. He 
confessed that he saw and felt it, but could not account for 
it ; but that he would make the enquiry of those more com- 
petent than himself, and tell me the result. He was true to 
X 



458 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



his word, and I learned shortly afterwards the explanation 
he received. It was, that God, by express revelation, com- 
manded St. Peter to resign the bishopric of Antioch, and 
to accept the bishopric of Rome ; and that the exchange 
having been effected, St. Peter bequeathed by will the head- 
ship of the church, with all the privileges of authority and 
supremacy, to the church of Rome ! 

It seems strange, that thinking men should be content 
with such an answer as this — A revelation from God 
translating Peter from the see of Antioch to the see of 
Rome, and a will from Peter, bequeathing his supremacy 
and authority to the successors in the see of Rome ! 

They have no other answer than this — they have no other 
link than this to complete the chain ! We tell them, there 
never was such a revelation. We tell them there never was 
such a will. And yet, upon this wild and foolish fiction, the 
whole privilege of the headship of the church, the mother 
and mistress of all churches — the authority of the pope — 
the supremacy of the church — is asserted to exist in the 
church of Rome in preference to the church of Antioch. 
On this wild and foolish fiction, they claim for the bishop 
of Rome, as the chief bishop of the church of Christ, and 
for the church of Rome, as " the mother and mistress of 
all churches," an authority over the Church of England ! 

We will never yield ourselves to this claim. Even if 
they could produce a revelation from God, commanding St. 
Peter to remove his see from Antioch to Rome, it could 
only prove he had lawful authority at Rome ; it could not 
prove he had lawful authority in England. Even if they 
could produce the pretended will of St. Peter, devising au- 
thority and supremacy to Rome, we must deny his right to 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 459 

make such a bequest. We should argue that even if he pos- 
sessed authority and supremacy himself, he could no more 
devise them, than the Queen of England could devise her 
crown, or than the archbishop of Canterbury could devise his 
see. The Queen of England has only a life interest in the 
crown ; she cannot devise it. The archbishop of Canterbury 
has only a life-interest in his see ; he cannot devise it. And 
in the same way, St. Peter had only a life interest in his 
supposed authority and supremacy ; he could not devise it. 
If ever there was a headship of the Church in St. Peter, 
then, when he died, it either died with him, or it must 
have lapsed to St. Paul, or St. James, or St. John, or to 
some one of the apostles. It is not possible it could have 
descended to any inferior person, that he should have a 
headship over the apostles of our Lord. So that even if 
there was such a revelation and such a will, it might prove 
St. Peter had authority in Eome, but it could not prove that 
he had authority in England. 

And now to review our argument. The claim of the 
Bishop of Rome to the headship of the Church of Christ, 
and his consequent claim to authority over our Church and 
realm of England, depends or hangs suspended, as it were, 
on a chain consisting of three links. The first is, that St. 
Peter was the rock, on which the whole Church was built. 
The second is, that he placed the Church at Rome, and 
thus connected himself with that see. The third is, that 
he bequeathed his infallible authority from his eldest 
daughter of Antioch, to his younger daughter of Rome. 
It is evident, that if any one of these three links be 
defective, and much more if all of them are defective, 
the Vatican is too vast a burden for them, and the whole 
X 2 



460 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



must fall and be broken in pieces. The more this chain of 
argument is examined, the more assured will every thinking 
man become of the utter vanity and futility of the Romish 
claims. It would not be more vain or futile, to dream of 
suspending the dome of St. Paul's Cathedral on a spider's 
web, or Windsor castle on a gossamer thread, than to 
suspend the claims of the Papacy upon a support so frail 
and slender as this. 

And yet this is the whole force of their argument, as 
founded on that place in Matt. xvi. It is the sheet-anchor 
to which their advocates hold when all else seems swept 
away, and everything seems the shattered fragments of a 
wreck ; they therefore cling to it as with the grasp of death. 
Often, however, have I seen them after many a long and 
vigorous and desperate struggle, at last relax their hold, 
and, with weeping eye and heaving breast, let it be swept 
away with all the useless lumber that had long been con- 
nected with it. And then all was new. It was indeed a 
change, great, boundless, wonderful. It was as if they 
had been plunged amid the raging surges — had felt the 
death-struggle — had seen glimpses of another world, and 
had now at last opened the eye on a scene of peace and 
rest and joy. One had spoken the words, " Peace, be 
still," and there was a great calm. It was the change from 
the uncertainty of Romanism to the realities of Chris- 
tianity ! 

While arguing on this subject, my friend, on one occa- 
sion, objected to my regarding the passage in Matthew as 
the only place that taught the supremacy of Peter. He 
referred to John xxi. 15. He remarked on this, that our 
Lord's people or church were His flock of " sheep " and 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 461 



of " lambs ; " — that they, the old and the young, were 
alike committed to Peter, and not to the other Apostles ; 
and he therefore inferred that oar Lord constituted him as 
the Chief Shepherd of souls, as His Vicar or Chief Shep- 
herd upon earth. 

In reply to this, I expressed the pain that every good 
man must feel at the fact, that scriptures like this should 
have ever become a field of controversy. They were 
designed for the use and profit and improvement of 
souls ; shewing their need of constant watching and tend- 
ing ; and also shewing the real duty of the ministry of 
the church as the shepherds of the flock. I added, that 
the allusion in the present instance was a painful one, 
and militated against Peter. He had denied our Lord — he 
had done so three times ; — he had done so with every 
aggravation, even with cursing and oaths ; and he was 
probably regarded, at least there was danger of his being 
regarded by the other Apostles, as having fallen from his 
apostleship. They knew that Judas had so fallen. Peter 
himself knew this and states this. (Acts i. 20.) His mind 
and their mind required to be satisfied. And our Lord 
therefore addressed Peter in this remarkable way to set all 
this at rest. Peter had denied Him three times. And in 
allusion to this our Lord commits to him three times the 
office which he had justly forfeited, that of being one of 
the shepherds of His flock. And thus, I argued, that 
these words can in no sense be construed into an appoint- 
ment of Peter as the head of the church and Vicar of 
Christ. They were designed rather to humble him, as re- 
minding him of his fall. 

My friend was not satisfied altogether with this, and 



462 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



added, that our Lord must have intended something more 
than this. We never read of any other persons being 
desired to feed the sheep and the Iambs of Christ ; He 
used such language only to Peter. 

I told him that the same language was applied in Holy 
Scripture to all the ministers of the church ; — that they all, 
as well as Peter, were addressed as shepherds of the flock 
of Jesus Christ, the Great Shepherd of the sheep ; — that 
Paul so addresses them — "Take heed, therefore, unto your- 
selves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has 
made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he 
has purchased with his own blood." — Acts xx. 28. Such 
was the language of Paul ; and that of Peter himself is 
similar, — " The elders who are among you, I exhort, who 
am also an elder — feed the flock." — 1 Peter v. 1. This 
language shews that all the ministry of the church are the 
shepherds of the flock of Christ ; and therefore, that there 
is nothing extraordinary in the application of the same 
language by our Lord to Peter. 

My friend made no further remark on this subject, so I 
took occasion to say, that I never could see why the advo- 
cates of the church of Rome were so anxious to magnify 
Peter above the other Apostles. I could never see how 
they could benefit their position by such means ; for, even 
supposing they could prove that Apostle to be the prince 
of the Apostles, I could not see how that fact, if indeed a 
fact, could give reality to any fiction, or effect to any as- 
sumption, or truth to any error that might exist in the 
church of Rome. I stated freely, that I did not want to 
press the argument, that of all the Apostles Peter seemed 
the least fitted for supremacy ; he reproved our Lord for 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 463 



speaking of his coming sufferings ; he refused to be washed 
by the hands of our Lord ; he proposed on the mount of 
transfiguration to make a tabernacle for Moses and Elias, 
as if on an equality with Christ, as the evangelist simply 
remarks — "not knowing what he said;" he denied our 
Lord under the most base circumstances, with cursing and 
oaths ; he was openly withstood to the face by Paul, be- 
cause he had dissembled ' and was to be blamed as not 
walking uprightly. He seems thus the least likely to have 
been selected to be the prince of the Apostles; the more 
especially as on two occasions, Luke ix. 46, and xxii. 24, 
we read of some disputes among them as to who was to 
be the greatest. Now as the much-boasted passage sup- 
posed to have conferred this chief -ship on Peter occurs in 
Matt, xvi., and as the dispute among them, as to who was 
to be the greatest, occurred immediately afterwards, in 
Matt, xviii., so it must be inferred that the question was 
not settled by our Lord's words in Matt. xvi. ; or otherwise 
the dispute could never have arisen. And besides this, our 
Lord would at once have silenced it by reminding them 
that he had already appointed Peter over them, if indeed 
he had appointed him. But, instead of this, as if nothing 
of the kind had ever occurred, he puts a child in the midst, 
and proceeds to tell them that no one was to be their chief, 
for that all were to be equal as brethren. 

There was no effort to reply to this ; so I said, that even 
if we granted a supremacy or a primacy to St. Peter, I 
could not see how it improved the position of the church 
of Rome, so far as her claims were concerned. The great 
point between us was, whether certain doctrines and prac- 
tices, which we held to be untrue and novel, contrary to 



464 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Holy Scripture and different from the primitive church, 
were or were not the true doctrines and practices of Christ's 
church. I could never see how any question respecting 
Peter could determine this. Let him be supposed to have 
held any position whatever in the days of our Lord and of 
His Apostles, that fact, supposing it to be a fact, could not 
be a justification of any error of doctrine or of practice 
which had afterwards crept into the church of Rome. His 
ancient primacy could not give truth to any modern error. 

My friend, who had been silent, as if doubtful how to 
reply, now said, that if Peter was the head of the church, 
it might fairly be inferred that the church of Rome has 
inherited that headship over the whole church, so as to be 
entitled to the obedience of all other churches. 

I said, that I could not for a moment recognize any head 
of the church but one — the Lord Jesus Christ. He and 
only He is in the Holy Scriptures styled the Head of the 
Church. " He hath put all things under his feet, and gave 
him to be the Head over all things to the church." Eph. 
i. 22. Again, c< Christ is the Head of the Church." Eph. 
v. 23. Again, "He is the Head of the body, the Church." 
Col. i. 18. Again in Col. ii. 19. And again, "that we 
may grow up into Him in all things who is the Head, even 
Christ." Eph. iv. 15. The language of Holy Scripture 
is clear on this subject, and we cannot without irreverence 
speak of any other as Head of the Church. It is a grand 
element of truth as received among us, that there can be 
no Head but Jesus Christ. 

My friend seemed fully aware of this principle. He did 
not seem so well aware that the Holy Scriptures had so 
frequently spoken only of Christ as the Head. He there- 



THE SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 465 



fore said, that admitting that Jesus Christ was the Head over 
the Church, yet as He was in Heaven, He required a Head 
for His Church on earth, and that thus the successors of 
Peter in the See of Rome claimed to be his vicars on earth. 

I said that the fact of Jesus Christ having ascended into 
heaven, did not prove any necessity for a vicar or deputy 
on earth, inasmuch as he was ever present by His Holy 
Spirit, ruling all things in the Church. The Holy Spirit 
was the One who rules in his stead. And as to the argu- 
ment that Christ had ascended into heaven — that he was 
no more in the Church on earth — and that he therefore re- 
quired a vicar in his place, I said that it seemed to me a 
strange position for a Romanist, who believed that He was 
literally, truly, substantially in flesh, and blood, and soul, 
and divinity, on every altar, and at all times in her churches. 
If indeed He is thus always present, it cannot be supposed 
He wants a vicar to represent Him. 

This way of stating the question struck my friend as 
new, and he saw no way of getting out of it. And there- 
fore without attempting to answer it, he only said carelessly 
that with so many churches in the world it was desirable to 
have one to rule over them all, as the one head bishop of 
all upon earth. It would serve to promote and establish 
unity and uniformity among all. 

I was fully prepared for this point, for I had heard it urged 
a thousand times. I said that my friend knew that there were 
many kingdoms* and empires, and republics in the world. 
They were all under their own particular laws and rulers ; 
and there seemed no necessity or even advantage, but quite 
the contrary, in their having One Chief Sovereign who was 
to be head over all other sovereigns, with the view of estab- 
X 5 



466 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



lishing one set of laws and principles among them. It 
was undoubtedly better for mankind, that each state should 
be governed by itself, all being under the headship of Him 
who is the King of kings, and Lord of lords. And in like 
manner there are many national churches, under their own 
laws and rulers. And there is no more necessity for their 
being all subjected to one head on earth, than that all the 
civil states of the world should be subjected to one sovereign 
over all. Wisdom would seem to teach that all states 
should be ruled by themselves, all being alike under the 
Headship of Christ, and that in like manner "all churches 
should be regulated by themselves, all being alike under 
the Headship of Christ. The churches require a Head 
upon earth no more than the states. They both have their 
Head in the Heavens, and he can rule both without any 
special vicar upon earth. If he can rule the kingdoms and 
empires of the earth without any supreme vicar over all, He 
can as fully rule all the national Churches of the earth 
without any supreme vicar over all. 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



THE TWO MODES OF TESTING INFALLIBILITY — -THE VALUE Of THIS 

PRIVILEGE IT IS CLAIMED BY ALL CHURCHES THE ROMANISTS 

PLACE IT IN COUNCILS AND POPES PROTESTANTS HAVE IT IN 

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES THE SYSTEMS COMPARED A LIVING AND 

SPEAKING INFALLIBILITY DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY CHURCH ' 

ROMISH ARGUMENTS FOR INFALLIBILITY EXAMINED ITS SUP- 
POSED NECESSITY AND USEFULNESS TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE 

ARGUMENT IN COMMON WITH THE JEWISH CHURCH ITS INFAL- 
LIBILITY MORE EASILY PROVEABLE THAN THAT OF THE ROMISH 
CHURCH GENERAL COUNCILS, THEIR CONSTITUTIONS, AND IN- 
CONSISTENCIES. 

In reference to the claim of infallibility on the part of the 
church of Rome, there is a wide difference in the process of 
argument as handled by her advocates, and as handled by 
her opponents. They always assume that their church is 
infallible, and thence conclude that whatever she teaches is 
right, — whatever its appearances, it is right. We on the 
other hand argue, that, that which the law condemns is 
wrong, and thence we conclude that she is not infallible. 
With them the assumed infallibility justifies and sanctions 
the thing that seems to us to be wrong. With us the thing 
being wrong, proves that the church is not infallible. 

An illustration — and the more simple the better, — will 



468 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



elucidate this difference of reasoning. If a man has been 
detected in the act of thieving, and has been charged with 
dishonesty and crime, there are two modes of reasoning 
on his case. On one hand he may admit the fact, that 
he has robbed, but he may argue that the act was 
neither dishonest nor criminal, because that he was an hon- 
est and lawful man, who would never have done that which 
was dishonest or criminal. He thus admits the fact, but 
justifies it on the ground, that it is done by one who cannot 
do wrong, and whose very doing it, justifies and sanctions 
it. His accuser on the other hand, proves the fact, and 
argues that thieving or robbing is contrary to the law, a 
breach of the written law. And being a dishonest and 
criminal act, the man who is guilty, must be held to be dis- 
honest and criminal. This illustration explains the different 
process of reasoning of the advocates of the rival churches. 
The Romanist argues that latin prayers, half-communion, 
prayers to saints, worship of Mary, use of images, &c, are all 
wise, and right, and good, because they have been done by 
an infallible church. However wrong, mischievous, dan- 
gerous, unscriptural they may seem, they ought to be held 
wise, and good, and right, because sanctioned by an infalli- 
ble church. The Protestant on the other hand, argues that 
these practices are contrary to the law, the written law of 
God as contained in Holy Scriptures, (as contrary as thiev- 
ing and robbery is to the written law of the land,) and 
therefore the fact that the church of Rome has ordained, 
and practised, and taught these, proves that she is an erring 
and guilty church, instead of being, as she assumes, an in- 
fallible one. Thus the church of Rome tries her actions by 
her claim to infallibility, and we try her claim to infallibility 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



469 



by her actions, thus trying her as we try the professing 
Christian, that is, we test his profession of Christianity by 
his action, not his actions by his profession. We judge 
the tree by its fruit, not the fruit by the tree. 

The natural course, which common sense and just dealing 
will justify, and which is analogous to all our dealings in 
human life, is to test the character of the church of Rome 
by her actions — to test her orthodoxy by her doctrines, and 
her infallibility by her practices. It is therefore that every 
proof of the unscriptural and antiscriptural nature of her 
peculiar doctrines and practices — every proof of their being 
inconsistent with or contrary to the lex scripta, the written 
law of God, is a proof against the assumed infallibility of the 
church of Rome. It is precisely with that church, as with 
every man. If we have proved him to have spoken words, 
which the law of the land condemn as rebellious or treason- 
able, or, if we have proved him to have done an action, 
which the written law of the land condemns as illegal and 
criminal, he is at once condemned. And so, if we have 
proved, that the church of Rome has taught doctrines con- 
trary to the written word of God, or that she has inculcated 
practices opposed to the written law of God — if we have 
proved that she has ordained that which is unscriptural or 
anti- scriptural, she must be condemned. This is the judg- 
ment of all common sense and right justice alike.* 

* Some of her advocates argue that though these acts seem contrary to 
the written law of God, yet they are not contrary to the unwritten law — 
though seeming contrary to the Scriptures, they are not contrary to tra- 
dition. They distinguish thus, as between the statute law and the common 
law of England ; and they forget that the common law, that is, the un- 
written law of England, must always yield to the statute or written law. 
It should be the same in the church. 



470 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



But, as the advocates of the church of Rome insist on 
assuming her to be infallible and as justifying everything 
in the virtue of her assumed infallibility, we may follow 
them, and impeach her claim to infallibility without refer- 
ence to her actions at all. The following conversation, in 
which I was once engaged with a very good and zealous 
priest of the church of Rome, will illustrate this. 

He spoke in a tone that shewed he felt what he was say- 
ing, when he expatiated upon the value of an infallible au- 
thority. He reminded me that naturally we were all in the 
deepest darkness and ignorance as to the spiritual and eter- 
nal world — that we naturally knew nothing about heaven 
or hell — about God or Christ, or the Spirit, or the Virgin 
Mary, or the angels, or the saints, or even our own souls 
— that all the mythologies of the heathen world, the Egyp- 
tian, the Greek, the Hindoo and many others only shewed 
what poor and blind guides were the wisest of men — that 
the great thing therefore that was wanted by us, was an 
infallible guide, a teacher, so to speak, inspired by God 
himself — and that this was to be found only in the bosom 
of that church which was infallible. 

I replied in the same tone of earnestness, feeling the rea- 
lity of what I was saying. I stated clearly and strongly 
how fully I agreed with him as to the value and necessity 
for an infallible authority. And I dwelt on the intense igno- 
rance and darkness — a darkness which, — like that of Egypt, 
could be felt — of man when left in his natural state, urging 
that he knew not whence he came, where he was, or whi- 
ther he was going, and that there was a necessity — an ab- 
solute necessity for an infallible authority, a God-inspired 
authority to teach him with certainty the way of life. I 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



471 



added, that thus far we were both in perfect accord. The 
point where we differed, was as to the place, where we 
could find it. We looked for it in different directions. 

He said at once with confidence, apparently enchanted 
at my admission, that it was in the church of Rome — that 
no other church could pretend to the claim, and in fact that 
no other church had ever claimed it. 

I replied that all the churches of Christendom — that the 
Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Lutheran 
church, all the non- conformist churches claimed it alike. 
There was not one of them with which I was acquainted 
that did not claim the full possession, not indeed the exclu- 
sive, but the full possession of this infallibility. They all 
possessed the Holy Scriptures ! They all received 
them, " not as the word of man, but as they are in truth, 
the word of God" They knew that " All Scripture was 
given by inspiration of God" and they felt that those Scrip- 
tures were therefore infallible, were an infallible guide, an 
infallible teacher, and, possessing this, they claimed to pos- 
sess and did possess infallibility, the infallibility that was so 
valuable and necessary. 

My friend was evidently taken by surprise at this. It 
seemed never to have occurred to him before ; so I took 
occasion to add, that, where he had described the natural 
ignorance of man, here was the God-inspired guide to teach 
him — that where he had painted the deep darkness of man 
in his state of nature, here was the infallible authority that 
could enlighten and direct him, and that could tell him all 
that man can know, as being all God has revealed respect- 
ing Heaven and Hell, and God and Christ and the Spirit, 
and also all we ought to know or think respecting the 



472 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



angels or the saints, or our own souls. The only true in- 
fallibility, which the church on earth possesses, is in the 
Holy Scriptures. And this infallible guide all the 
Protestant churches possess ! 

He did not see how he could answer this. He hesitated, 
and after a few moments said, that he admitted the Holy 
Scriptures to be inspired and therefore infallible, and that 
possessing them, we of course possessed an infallible 
guide. But the real difficulty was not the Scriptures, but 
the interpretation of the Scriptures, and the advantage of 
the church of Rome was, that she had an infallible inter- 
preter of the Scriptures, while all others had only their own 
fallible interpretation of private judgment. 

I was prepared for this answer, and rejoined at once by 
asking him, where was I to find the infallible interpreter of 
Scripture in the church of Rome. 

He said without a moment's hesitation, that it was in the 
voice of the church of Rome ; that if I really wished to see 
it, I could see it recorded in the canons and decrees of the 
general councils, and in the bulls of the popes, — that these 
contained the infallible voice, and interpretation of the 
Scriptures. 

I reminded him in reply, that some of the church of 
Rome, as the French, held that the infallibility was in the 
general councils rather than in the popes, — that others of 
them, as the Italians, insist that the infallibility resides in 
the popes, rather than in the councils, — and that other 
authorities still, as the English, teach that the infallibility is 
in neither the councils nor the popes, but in the whole 
aggregate of the whole church, represented by the union of 
both popes and councils. I reminded my friend that it was 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



473 



not easy for me to find the precise locality where I could 
discover the infallible interpreter of Scripture. Each 
party seemed to me to prove clearly that his opponent was 
wrong, but to argue very feebly when endeavouring to 
prove that his own position was right, and therefore, I asked 
again, where among these discordant opinions, could I find 
that infallible interpreter which he admitted to be so essen- 
tial. 

It was at once apparent that he felt the difficulty of his 
position ; he said that such difference of opinion was wholly 
unimportant, — that however the Italians might differ from 
the French, and both from the English, yet they all agreed 
that the church was infallible, and that was the main point. 
They agreed in that which was essential, and they differed 
only in that which was non-essential. 

I apologised for seeming to be persevering. The ques- 
tion, I said, was not whether there was infallibility in the 
church of Rome, but where was I to find in her the infallible 
interpreter of Scripture, which he stated to be so essential. 
He had merely stated that it was somewhere, but omitted 
to say where, and I felt that the infallible interpreter 
was to be found nowhere; — if as one party, the French, 
stated it was not in the Popes, and if another party, as the 
Italians, asserted it was not in the councils, and if a further 
party, as the English, held it was not to be found in either 
the one or the other, we were left practically in the position 
of those who could not find it anywhere, as if it really had no 
actual existence anywhere. I therefore, pressed him kindly 
to direct me to where I should positively, or at least proba- 
bly, find this infallible interpreter. 

He evidently knew not precisely what reply to make to 



474 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



my natural enquiry ; but he said that the disputes in the 
church of Rome, as to the seat of infallibility, were quite 
unimportant, so long as the existence of the infallibility 
somewhere within her was admitted ; and he assured me 
that I had only to study the Canons of the Councils and the 
Bulls of the popes, and I should soon find the infallible in- 
terpreter. 

This placed the whole argument in my hands ; I there- 
fore said, that on his own shewing, the difference between 
the Roman infallibility and the Protestant infallibility was 
this — the Roman infallibility was said to be in the Canons 
and Bulls of popes, while the Protestant infallibility was 
in the Holy Scriptures ; the question therefore was, 
which of these two was the more useful, convenient, avail- 
able. The Roman infallibility was comprised in a large 
and vast series of ponderous volumes, to be found only in 
the libraries of the universities, and of public institutions, 
requiring a whole life to read them, and a fortune to pur- 
chase them. The Protestant infallibility, on the other hand, 
was in one small and compact volume, to be found in every 
family, and so cheap as to be accessible to all, and easily 
perused by all. Again, the Roman infallibility was con- 
tained in Canons and Bulls, written originally in Greek and 
in Latin, and never translated into our modern languages, 
and therefore wholly inaccessible and useless to the great 
multitude of the Christian family. The Protestant infalli- 
bility on the other hand, is found in the Holy Scriptures, 
which, though originally written in Hebrew and Greek, 
have been translated and circulated in every language, and 
thus have become accessible and intelligible to all the 
family of Christ. And, although my friend had stated 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



475 



that the Holy Scriptures were subject to this objection, 
that they required to be translated — that they required 
their authenticity to be proved — that they required their in- 
spiration to be demonstrated — that they required to be 
interpreted, as otherwise they were liable to be misinter- 
preted and differently interpreted by different persons ; so 
the very same objection applied to the Canons of Coun- 
cils and Bulls of popes, for that they required also to be 
translated — they required also their authenticity to be 
proved — they required also their inspiration to be demon- 
strated — they required also to be interpreted, as otherwise 
they were liable to be misinterpreted and differently inter- 
preted by different persons. There was not a single objec- 
tion advanced against the Holy Scriptures, the infallible 
guide of the Protestant churches, which does not apply still 
more strongly against the Canons and Bulls which are the 
infallible guide of the Roman churches. And there is this 
one important consideration — one of immense and solemn 
importance on such a subject. Our guide, the Holy Scrip- 
tures, is admitted by Rome herself to be God-inspired, and 
therefore infallible. There is no question on that point, 
that infallibility is admitted by all; while, on the other 
hand, her guide, the Councils and the Popes, are not only 
not recognized or believed by us to be God-inspired or in- 
fallible, but the very reverse ; they are uninspired and 
fallible. 

We were thus brought to a pause in our argument. We 
had agreed as to the value and necessity for some infallible 
authority to teach and enlighten us in the things of the in- 
visible world. We had agreed that it ought to be easily 
accessible, available and intelligible to the people. The 



476 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



point whereon we were not agreed, was that my friend 
on the part of the church of Rome said, that this infallible 
authority was the Holy Spirit, inspiring the Canons of 
Councils, and Bulls of POPES,*while I maintained that 
it was the Holy Spirit, inspiring the Holy Scriptures. 
This therefore brought the question concerning infallibility 
to a short issue. It enabled me to place it in a simple and 
clear light. It enabled me to place the volumes of Coun- 
cils and Bulls on one side, and the Holy Scriptures on the 
other — to place the twenty or thirty ponderous volumes of 
the former on one side, and the one portable volume of the 
Bible on the other — to look at the untranslated and almost 
untranslatable Greek and Latin of the former on one hand, 
and on the plain and simple translation into English of the 
latter on the other hand — to look at the former, so large, 
cumbrous, expensive, on one side, and to look at the latter, 
so small, convenient, and cheap, on the other side — and 
having marked the contrast, we were in some condition to 
see which was the most convenient, accessible and available 
for the multitude, who constituted the children of God and 
family of Christ. 

My friend saw that the question was thus narrowing ; 
and he likewise saw with clearness the difficulty of his posi- 
tion — the difficulty in which he was brought by this process 
of reasoning, but he did not see with equal clearness any 
mode by which he could extricate himself. He made, 
however, the best answer he could, when he said, that in 
an authority in spiritual things, such as that which we were 
seeking, there were other requisites besides portability and 
cheapness and availableness. These, he said, were very 
desirable perhaps, — but they were not all. The grand requi- 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



477 



site was, that the authority should be infallible, and that 
it should be universally recognised as infallible. 

To this I of course yielded my assent ; and taking ad- 
vantage of his words, I reminded him that that was the 
grand recommendation of the Holy Scriptures as well as 
the great defect of the Canons and Balls. It was the grand 
recommendation of the Holy Scriptures that their divine 
inspiration and infallibility is universally recognized, by 
Protestant and Romanist and Greek alike, while it is one 
great defect of the councils and bulls of popes that 
their divine inspiration or infallibility is not only not recog- 
nized, but absolutely rejected and denied by the majority 
of professing Christendom ! 

He then said, that the Holy Scriptures, considered as the 
infallible authority in the church, were liable to a farther 
objection which he had not yet stated. It was that they 
were now silent, and could not speak, so as to decide on 
any question that had been raised for some centuries. It 
could not in fact be a living and speaking infallibility. 

I said, that it was scarcely necessary to remind him that 
the Canons of Councils and Bulls of Popes are in that 
respect in the very same predicament as the Holy Scriptures. 
They are no more living and speaking than the Holy Scrip- 
tures. If one be objected to because it is merely a book 
or volume, then the very same objection will lie against 
the other ; for the Canons of Councils and the Bulls of 
Popes are only a series of volumes — a dead, lifeless, non- 
speaking series of books or volumes. And any other exists 
not in the church of Rome ; for since the Council of Trent 
in 1562, there has never been a Council. For three hun- 
dred years this infallible authority has been in abeyance, 



478 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



and in silence, and must be so to the end of time. What- 
ever possibilities ever existed before the Reformation, for 
the assembling of a universal or general council of Chris- 
tendom, it is now impossible. And, therefore, if the living 
and speaking infallibility be in the Canons of Councils, ap- 
proved by the Bulls of Popes, then not only has it been three 
centuries in silence and abeyance, but it is in such a position, 
that like the long-buried dead, it cannot rise again till the 
judgment of the last day. And, I added, that the conduct 
of all their advocates proved this, for they never refer us to 
any living and speaking authority. They refer us always 
to some past council — some long past councils of which the 
very latest met and separated three centuries ago, and re- 
ferring us to these, and not to any living and speaking infal- 
libility, they practically shew that they have no faith them- 
selves in the existence of such. 

I ask you then, I said in conclusion, who or what or 
where is the living and speaking infallibility, to which you 
refer as so unspeakably valuable and essential ? You invite 
me to submit to it, you beseech me to come to it. Who, 
and what and where is it ? I mean this living and speaking 
infallibility, — who, and what and where is it ? 

My friend made no attempt to answer this. Long since 
this conversation was held, I have been answered at Rome 
that the Pope was this living and speaking infallibility, but 
my friend did not believe the Popes to be infallible. He 
held that the infallibility was in the General Councils ap- 
proved by Popes, and he therefore knew not where to turn 
to find a living and speaking infallibility in reply to my 
enquiry. 

But the question concerning infallibility is wide and large. 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



479 



It will bear handling in a great variety of ways. And I 
have usually left myself to be guided by the line adopted 
by my opponents. 

On one occasion, when conversing with a priest who 
seemed to me a good and pious man according to his light, 
we had been speaking on some great truths, on which we 
were not likely to differ, when he broke out with a warm 
and rapturous address on the comforts and blessedness and 
value of infallibility — the infallibility of the church. It 
gave, he said, such peace and quiet assurance to the mind ; 
so that a Christian man was not " tost to and fro with 
every wind." It was such a satisfaction to know that one 
was on an immoveable rock, and that in all we were to be- 
lieve or to do, we had the sanction of the infallibility of 
the Church. He added, that to his mind the possession of 
infallibility was the greatest and most blessed of the privi- 
leges or prerogatives of the church. 

I replied, that I could understand an infallibility in the 
Holy Scriptures, but that I could not understand it in 
any other way in the Church. 

He said, that it was impossible for any man, amidst the 
innumerable divisions of the times, the endless distractions 
of the professing church, the variety of sects and parties, 
the multiplicity of opinions, to have any peace or quiet 
assurance of mind, unless by reposing on the infallible 
authority of the church — that men of the most astute in- 
tellect, and the deepest and profound genius, were unable 
often to determine between the arguments of opposing par- 
ties — that men learned in all historical research and ecclesi- 
astical lore, felt themselves often like some ship made the 
sport of the winds and the waves, without pilot or compass 



480 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



to guide them ; that men of gentle spirits and meek and 
lowly piety, were agitated and distracted by the contentions, 
the contradictions, the arguments of rival sects, till it seemed 
to them that religion was for contention and not for peace ; 
that in the midst of all this, men could see no star to 
guide, no compass to direct, unless they consented to sur- 
render their own private judgments, and submit all their 
doubts and difficulties, to the infallible authority of the 
church. 

I said, that I could quite enter into and understand all 
this, provided it was first proved that this infallible autho- 
rity did really exist in the church of Rome. I said, that 
my difficulty was not in yielding to an infallibility ; for I 
yielded all to the infallible authority of the Holy Scriptures, 
but, that my real difficulty was in believing that there was 
some infallible authority in the church of Rome, other and 
beside the Holy Scriptures. 

He spoke to me with warmth and earnestness, and instead 
of noticing my difficulty, — instead of proving the existence 
of this infallible tribunal, he expatiated on the sad and 
melancholy divisions of the church. On one hand was the 
Greek church with all the Asiatic churches, separated from 
the communion of the one Catholic church. On the other 
hand, was the Protestant church with its endless variety of 
sects, cut off from the pale of the one Catholic church, and 
in these distractions there could be no peace for any man, 
till he once resolved to silence his own doubting, unbeliev- 
ing temper, and submitted himself to the infallible authority 
of the church, H said he could well understand the state 
of my mind, and would not for the world exchange for it 
his own quiet and undoubting faith in the church. If a 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



481 



subtle argument was objected to him and he could not answer 
it, he felt it must be wrong as being opposed by infallibility, 
— if a doubting feeling passed for a moment across his 
mind as to any Catholic truth, it was at once silenced by 
resting on infallibility. And as to all the sects and parties 
into which we were divided, as to all the opinions that were 
discussed and debated among us, they were at once disposed 
of by an appeal to infallibility ; and he added, that I could 
never have quiet of heart, or peace of mind, until I had 
unreservedly flung from me every previous opinion, and 
every judgment of my own, so as to accept unreservedly 
and with implicit faith, the judgment of the church of 
Rome. 

I replied to all this in an earnest and affectionate tone ; I 
felt he was sincere ; I therefore, stated that I had been in 
the habit of regarding the Holy Scriptures as infallible, as 
being the word of God, especially as it was expressly said 
that " all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," and 
that I conceived that all the advantages which he imagined 
in connection with the infallibility of the church of Rome, 
were enjoyed by myself in connection with this infallibility 
of the Holy Scriptures. Having stated this, and having 
with all warmth of heart portrayed to him the preciousness of 
the Word of God, to the soul, — the light, that shone from 
its pages, the comforts, that were in its promises, the 
blessedness that it portrayed, the love of Christ that it 
exhibited, the fulness for our salvation which characterized 
it — having stated all this, and pressed on him the peace 
and joy, and blessedness, he would find in the study of it, 
promising that he would realize as David did, that the word 
was " sweeter than honey and the honeycomb," — having 

Y 



482 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



stated all this, I concluded by reminding him that the diffi- 
culty on my mind was, that he had never shewn me that 
there was any infallible tribunal, other or beside this, in the 
church of Rome. There could be no doubt or hesitation 
in at once submitting to it, if once its existence were proved. 
I therefore asked him to prove to me the existence of this 
other infallible tribunal beside the Holy Scriptures, and I 
pressed on him that as he had urged me to have recourse 
to it, he was bound at least to prove to me its existence. 

He said, that it was scarcely necessary to undertake to 
prove that which was universally admitted, namely, that 
there was in the church an infallible authority. It was 
proved by the necessity for its existence. The church 
could not go on without it. There could be no unity with- 
out it. All would be private judgment, and division, and 
distraction without it. All peace, and order, and certainty 
would vanish away without it. And the church would 
necessary become a field of contention instead of peace, 
and a scene of division instead of unity, if such an infalli- 
ble authority did not exist, to restrain, silence, certify on 
all things. There is thus a necessity of the highest kind 
for the existence of this infallible authority, and we thus 
prove it by this necessity for its existence. Without it 
there would be endless inconvenience. With it there are 
incalculable advantages. 

I replied, that all this seemed to me to prove only that 
authority was desirable — an authority which could influence 
the mind and calm the contentions of men ; but that it 
did not prove the existence of an infallible authority , which 
was the point before us. I said that an example would 
illustrate this. In the civil state an authority was necessary 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 483 



to restrain the wicked, and there must, therefore, be an 
authority in the law, and an authority in the executive, or 
the whole social state — the whole fabric of civil society 
would crumble into ruin. That authority suppresses trea- 
son, rebellion, murder, robbery, and all crimes against the 
well-being of society, and there is a necessity for this ; but 
there is no necessity for infallible laws and an infallible 
authority in the civil power for this. There is need for 
authority in the civil sovereign, but no need of infallible 
authority, and in like manner, though his argument went 
to prove the need of authority in the church, it shewed no 
need of infallible authority, 

He saw this, and acknowledged it, but he added, that it 
would be of immense advantage that the authority in the 
church should be infallible, as by being infallible it silenced 
not only the contentions and divisions and controversies of 
men, but silenced also the very doubts, as they arose in the 
minds of men. He argued therefore, that the great impor- 
tance and value of the thing, the convenience of having an 
infallible tribunal, was a presumptive argument to prove the 
existence of the thing. Look, he said, at the state of your 
Protestant churches. They are divided and torn asunder, 
the very soldiers that crucified the Blessed Saviour would 
not rend his garment, but cast lots for it, rather than tear 
it, but the Protestants, worse than these Pagans, tear the 
precious garment, the church of Christ into fragments ! It 
is not too much to say that between the church of Eng- 
land and Scotland, Episcopalian and Presbyterian and Me- 
thodist and Baptist, and Independent, and Moravian, and 
Irvingites, and Mormonites, and others, there are above a 
hundred different sects and parties, and yet they all ap- 
Y 2 



484 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



peal to the Holy Scriptures, they all acknowledge the Scrip- 
tures as their infallible authority — their infallible rule of 
faith, but in their interpretation of it, all their divisions arise. 
Now in this state of things, there is evidence of the neces- 
sity or at least the immense importance of an infallible tri- 
bunal to judge between them, to heal their divisions and 
bring all these discorded elements so as to mould them into 
harmony. It is like the necessity for omnipotence to bring 
order out of chaos at creation. And this affords strong 
ground for the belief that such an infallible authority really 
exists. And again when reading the Scriptures it is impos- 
sible to avoid seeing that they are "hard to be understood." 
Indeed an apostle expressly says they are so, and looking at 
the multiplicity of interpretation, which have been put on 
each passage, so contrary one to another, it is not possible 
to feel otherwise than wishing for an infallible authority to 
decide for us. 

I replied by saying, that I could readily admit that to al- 
lay strife and contention — to put an end to the endless di- 
visions of the church — and to quiet doubting minds, and 
settle every disputed tenet, would be very desirable, and if 
an infallible authority, other and beside the Holy Scriptures, 
could be found to do this, it would be very desirable indeed ; 
but I said, the defect of his whole reasoning was his sup- 
posing that to wish for it, was a proof that we had it, or 
that our thinking it desirable, was any real proof that it 
existed. The desirableness of anything is no proof that 
the thing exists. The convenience, the supposed conveni- 
ence of a thing, is no evidence that it really exists. It may 
seem very convenient and desirable, that all pain and disease 
and sorrow should be banished from our nature — that at 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



485 



least an elixir vita that could effectually heal them all, 
should be revealed to our science. It may seem to be con- 
venient, and desirable that the fountain of youth and life, 
in which mortals had only to bathe and become young 
again, and immortal on earth, should be not a fable but a 
reality, and that the styx might 'still be available, in which 
we might plunge and become invulnerable. It may seem 
marvellously desirable that all doubts and difficulties and 
mental conflicts should be shut out from the people of God, 
that all divisions and destractions should be prevented in 
the church, rather than they should first be permitted, and 
then that an infallible tribunal should be required to remedy 
them, it being more desirable and convenient to prevent the 
evil than to remedy it. It may seem desirable and conve- 
nient to exclude all possibility of sin by making each one 
of us infallible in himself — having an infallible j udgment in 
himself, and so needing no appeal elsewhere. It may seem 
desirable and convenient that there should be no death after 
life, and no hell after death, for the punishment of the lost. 
These and a thousand things, as infallible kings as well as 
infallible bishops — infallible magistrates as well as infallible 
priests — infallible parliaments of statesmen as well as infal- 
lible councils of churches. These and a thousand things 
may seem desirable and convenient, but this is no proof that 
they really exist ; and our present question is not as to the 
desirableness or convenience of infallible authority, our ques- 
tion is as to the reality and existence of such an authority. 
Have you, I asked, have you a proof of the reality and 
existence of such an infallible tribunal in your church ? 

He was evidently conscious that he had failed thus far, 
and that he must advance something more definite and logi- 



486 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



cal on a point of so much importance. He said, after a 
pause, that it was impossible to suppose that God would 
have left the church without such an infallible tribunal, 
such a tribunal as could settle every contention, breathe calm 
into every soul, still and speak peace to every ruffled spirit, 
and give assurance and safety to all. He was a God of 
love, whose love for his people was infinite. He was a God 
of mercy whose compassion rested upon all His poor, weak, 
and suffering people, and it was impossible to have a just 
sense of His loving and merciful nature, and suppose he 
could have left us without such an infallible authority as 
seemed so useful, salutary, and necessary. 

I answered this by saying that it seemed to me irreverent 
towards God to say that he ought to have given us anything 
— that it was illogical to argue that, that he must have given 
it to us because we think it desirable or convenient. We 
ought never to argue as to what God ought to have done, 
or what God could have done. We ought only to argue as 
to what God has done. 

And I endeavoured to illustrate the fallacy of such pro- 
cess of reasoning, by saying, it might seem to us only con- 
sistent with the mercy and love of our merciful and loving 
God, to invest us with an infallible judgment ourselves, so 
as to be able to protect ourselves from error — it might seem 
only consistent with the mercy and love of our merciful 
and loving God to remove sin so far from us, in fact to 
remove it from our world, so as to spare us from the possi- 
bility of temptation or of sin, — it might seem too only 
consistent with the love and mercy of our loving and mer- 
ciful God to close the abyss of Hell, and thus seal up for 
ever the mouth of that destroying gulf, that so none might 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



487 



ever perish within its torments and its horrors. But, I ar- 
gued, that however all this might seem only consistent 
with the love and mercy of God, we knew by plain and 
universal experience, that there is a fallacy in all such rea- 
soning ; for we know, by melancholy experience, that we 
have a liability to temptation and sin and death, and that 
we have not an infallible judgment. I said, that all such 
reasoning was not only illogical but irreverent. 

He seemed to feel this; and when I perseveringly pressed 
him to advance some other argument or evidence as to the 
existence of an infallible authority in the church of Rome, 
he was compelled to confess that he was not prepared with 
other proofs — that he had thought these sufficient. It 
remained therefore, only for me to press on him, that he 
ought not to peril his soul's health and salvation on what 
he supposed to be an infallible authority, when he was 
unable to prove the reality of such an infallibility ; and all 
the more when there were the Holy Scriptures — the God- 
inspired volume — which were necessarily infallible, and 
which he admitted to be infallible. 

Our conversation ended here. 

It will here be observed, that in this method of reason- 
ing on the subject of infallibility there has been no argu- 
ment from the Holy Scriptures ; — no passage, no promise, 
appealed to, as justifying the church of Rome in a claim to 
infallibility. There are indeed certain texts — two in num- 
ber — which are appealed to by the unlearned, but seldom 
by the learned. One is that place where our Lord says — 
"The gates of hell shall not prevail against my church," 
and the other, where He promised to His apostles — " Lo ! 
I am with you always, even to the end of the world." 



488 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



The first is in Matt. xvi. 18. Our Lord states that He 
would build His church upon a rock, and adds — " The 
gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The word "hell" 
in the original, is " Hades," the term usually applied to 
express the grave or death — the invisible world. As when 
Jacob says, his gray hairs would be brought down in sor- 
row to the grave. This word is the same ; and when it is 
said of our Lord, that he was not to be left in hell to see 
corruption, it plainly alludes to the resurrection of His body, 
which was not to be left in the grave so long as to become 
corrupted. "The gates of hell," therefore simply means 
" the gates of the grave," in other words, it is a figurative 
expression of the power of death ; and our Lord means 
that death or the grave shall never prevail against His 
church — that it shall never cease, shall never die — shall 
live and last for ever. 

This is the true promise of our Lord to His Church, a 
promise of perpetuity, a promise of immortality. And it is 
just like the promise of final safety and preservation to His 
faithful people. He says — "They shall be mine in that day 
when I gather up my jewels." He says — " I will raise 
them up at the last day." He says — " I will receive them 
unto myself, that where I am there they may be also." 
He says all this as to the final result — " they shall never 
perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand," 
but in saying this he does not promise that they shall never 
through life fall into any error, or into any sin ; — in saying 
this He does not promise that they shall be infallible, but 
only that they shall be brought through their errors and 
their sins, brought through repentance and faith to their 
final salvation. And so is the promise respecting his 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 489 



church. It shall never cease but shall live and last for 
ever. It is invested with perpetuity and clothed with im- 
mortality. It is not that no sin and no error shall ever 
reach it. It is not that infallibility shall be her privilege, 
but that death and the grave shall never prevail against her. 

The second text is in Matt, xxviii. 20. Our Lord de- 
sires His apostles to go forth and preach the gospel to the 
world ; and for their comfort and encouragement He pro- 
mises to be with them to the end — " Lo, I am with you 
always to the end of the world." This was evidently a pro- 
mise to sustain them amidst the troubles, sorrows, difficul- 
ties, disappointments, and persecutions which they were des- 
tined to suffer. And it implies that He by His Spirit would 
be with them to sustain and keep them. And that for the 
encouragement and comfort of all that, like them, are sent 
forth to preach the same gospel through all after ages,, He 
has graciously added, that He would be with them to the 
end of the world. 

But this does not imply infallibility. Indeed it was after 
that, that Peter fell into his error, noticed in Gal. ii. 11, 
where "he was to be blamed," as having " dissembled" 
and " walked not uprightly according to the truth of the 
gospel." It therefore could not have implied personal in- 
fallibility to him, either in conduct or in teaching, and 
much less to any individual person of later times. The 
words however cannot imply infallibility, for the very same 
promise was made to all Christian persons : " when two 
or three are gathered together in my name, there am I 
in the midst." And yet no one would think of inferring 
that every prayerful assembly of two or three Christians is 
infallible ; and yet if the promise to be with the apostles 
Y 5 



490 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



implies an infallibility either against sin or error, then the 
promise to be with all prayerful Christians, who assemble in 
the name of Christ, will involve an infallibility against sin 
and error, and so all Protestant assemblies for worship would 
be as entitled to this privilege of infallibility as those of the 
church of Rome. The simple truth is, that the promise of 
our Lord is not a promise of infallibility, but a gracious 
and loving promise to all who preach His gospel, that 
whatever be their trials, difficulties and dangers, He will 
be with them to sustain and comfort and bless them. 

But, as has been already stated, these texts are seldom 
cited unless by the unlearned ; at least, such has been my 
experience. When conversing with the learned of the 
church of Rome, I have found them speak of the promises 
to the church as a whole. They seemed to take them in 
the mass, so to speak, and to argue that they seemed to 
imply some wonderful privilege, like exemption from error, 
in other words, like infallibility. 

On one occasion of this kind, I replied, that whatever 
were the words of promise to the church of the New Testa- 
ment, as seeming to imply a privilege of this nature, the 
words of promise to the church of the Old Testament, to 
the Jewish priesthood, seemed to involve still loftier privi- 
leges. Every text, I said, cited in the New Testament, 
that tended to imply authority or infallibility to the church 
of the New Testament, was eclipsed far away by stronger 
and clearer texts of the Old Testament, that seemed to 
imply more fully and certainly the authority and infallibility 
of the church of the Old Testament ; and, I argued, that 
if the texts usually cited, prove the infallibility of the 
Christian Church, much more will the texts of the Old 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



491 



Testament prove the infallibility of the Jewish church. 
All those cited by the Romanists are far more than paral- 
leled and over-balanced in force and clearness by those 
which might be cited by Jews in favour of the infallibility 
of the Jewish church. For example — it is said of the 
Jewish priests that they were to be the teachers of the 
statutes of the Lord, Lev. x. 11 ; — that they were to teach 
Jacob the law and Israel the judgment of the Lord, Deut. 
xxxiii. 10; — that they were to keep knowledge, and that the 
people were to seek the law at the mouths of the priests, 
for that they were the messengers of the Lord of Hosts, 
Mai. ii. 7 ; — that in every controversy, in every matter too 
hard for the judgment of the people they were to come to 
the priests, who should determine the matter, and who 
were specially named and appointed to judge and decide in 
all controversies, Deut. xvii. 3. 2 Chron. xix. 8 ; — that 
" they shall teach my people the difference between the 
holy and the profane, &c, and in controversy shall they 
stand in judgment," Ezek. xliv. 24 ; and " by their word 
shall every controversy and every stroke be tried." — Deut. 
xxi. 5. All this is language in reference to the Jewish 
priesthood far stronger than any language cited in reference 
to the Christian ministry. All this is language implying 
far more power, authority, judgment, as the privilege of 
the Jewish church, than is implied in any passage cited as 
applicable to the Christian Church, and therefore, if the 
feebler and weaker texts cited by Romanists, will prove the 
infallibility of the Roman church, then will those stronger 
and clearer texts prove the infallibility of the Jewish church. 

This argument becomes stronger still, when we consider 
the wonderful promises made to the Jewish church and 



492 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Jewish priesthood, to the effect that God himself would 
dwell in the midst of them, and bless them, and keep them 
— that He was there by his special presence in the Holy of 
Holies — that he had constituted them to be a Sanhedrim or 
council to judge all causes and controversies in Jerusalem, — 
that he had given in the midst of them a standing oracle, 
the Urim and Thumin which they could at all times consult 
— When we consider that God had given such great privi- 
leges, and promised such vast blessings to the Jewish 
church, we cannot but feel, on contrasting them with the 
few feeble texts cited by Romanists in behalf of their 
church, that if these latter weak and feeble as they are, 
involve an infallibility, thus much more will those stronger 
and clearer texts prove the infallibility of the Jewish church. 
How triumphantly would the Romanists boast, if they could 
like the Jews, cite passages to prove specially that their 
priests were appointed by God to determine every hard 
matter and decide every controversy — if they could, like 
the Jews, cite the statements that their priests were speci- 
ally named as having the law, and that the people were to 
seek it at their lips — if they could, like the Jews, prove 
that they had the shekinah of the divine presence in the 
church of St. Peter, and the Urim and Thumin in the 
Vatican of their popes — if they could, like the Jews, find 
clear evidence that the seventy cardinals constituted a 
divinely appointed sanhedrin or council for the determining 
every controversy ! If indeed the advocates of the church 
of Rome could do this, they might seem to be doing some- 
thing, they might seem to be proving their claim to infal- 
libility, and yet, after all it would be only seeming to do so, 
for it would be only placing themselves on a level with that 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



493 



Jewish church, which was anything hut infallible, which 
was charged by God himself with apostacy, rebellion, idol- 
atry, and which in the end rejected his Son Jesus Christ. ! 

This argument I pressed strongly and in much detail on 
my opponent, as an answer to all the feeble texts which he 
was classing together, as implying or involving infallibility 
for the Roman church. 

He replied — as I had anticipated — with the statement 
that as the texts cited by him, involved the infallibility of 
the Christian Church, so the texts cited by me implied the 
infallibility of the Jewish church ; that he believed and held, 
and all the ablest divines of Rome, believed and held that 
the Jewish church was infallible — that the texts cited proved 
it. And he added, that his argument was that when God 
had invested the Jewish church with such infallibility, how 
much more may we infer that he has also invested the 
Christian Church with equal privileges and especially infal- 
libility. " My argument," he said, " assumes the infalli- 
bility of the Jewish church, and on that I found the con- 
clusion in behalf of the infallibility of the Christian Church." 

In reply to this, which is a favourite argument with 
Modern Romanists, I reminded him that the Jewish church 
could not have been infallible, for every form of open 
and secret idolatry was committed by the Jews in the 
days of Ahab and his successors — that the promises of 
God upon which the claim of infallibility was based, were 
promises made to the whole house of Israel and could not 
imply infallibility, for no less than ten of the tribes fell off 
and worshipped the calves of Dan and Bethel — that besides 
the sin of idolatry, they are charged by God himself with 
apostacy, leaving him for Baal and Ashteroth and the gods 



494 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



of the heathen, worshipping in the groves and high places, 
and under the green trees, giving even their children to 
Moloch — that they had so utterly fallen from God. that 
he grave them into the hands of their enemies, and the 
temple was burned, and the sacred vessels carried away, 
and Jerusalem destroyed, and the people sent into captivity 
— that after all this, when he sent His Son Jesus Christ, 
the long-promised and long-expected Messiah, the very 
sanhedrim, priests, people, all rejected, crucified, and killed 
him. The whole history of the Jews from their call to their 
dispersion, proves that the Jewish church was not infallible. 

My friend answered that their rejection of Jesus Christ 
only proved that they were not then infallible. Jesus Christ 
was then present, and in him the infallibility resided, and 
when he was among them, it was He and not they, who 
possessed the infallibility. 

I said, that I was aware of that view, as it was urged 
by Bossuet in his conference with Claude — that it was suffi- 
ciently ingenious, but that it failed in this, that my argu- 
ment referred to the preceding rebellions, idolatries, acd 
apostacies, with which God himself in all his prophets 
arraigns the Jewish church. I asked him whether such 
charges of rebellions, idolatries, and apostacies were con- 
sistent with the possession of infallibility. 

He naturallv answered that he could not think that infal- 
libility was consistent with rebellion, apostacy and idolatry. 

This brought our argument to a close, with the remark 
on my part, that he must give up the notion of the infalli- 
bility of the Jewish church, and consequently he must 
abandon his argument founded thereon, in favor of the in- 
fallibility of the Christian Church. 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 495 



Infallibility has never been formally claimed by the church 
of Rome, but it is advanced by all her advocates. When- 
ever their arguments from Holy Scripture fail them, they 
fall back on her claim to infallibility. This circumstance 
always forces this question prominently upon us. 

I was once brought to this subject by a very astute man, 
who had failed in his argument. 

As soon as he fell back on his assertion of the infallibility 
of the church, I stated that I was prepared to consult 
with him the utterances of this infallibility, if he would but 
tell me where it was to be found. He had asserted the 
existence of an infallible tribunal or court of appeal from 
the language of Scripture, and it was necessary that we 
should know this court, that we might bring our case be- 
fore it ; so I asked him where I was to find its decisions 
— that when Paul appealed to Csesar he well knew where 
his appeal was to be heard — that inasmuch as he, my 
friend, had referred his case to some court of appeal, 
which he declared to be infallible, it was an absolute neces- 
sity that I should know where that court of appeal was to 
be found, that I might follow the appeal and hear and 
know its decision on the question. I felt this was but 
reasonable. 

He replied that he was aware there was a difference of 
opinion as to the seat of this court, on the locality in which 
it was situated, and on the judge who determined the appeal. 
Some, he was aware, held that it was in the pontiff as suc- 
cessor of St. Peter — an opinion to which he confessed he 
could not agree — that others held that it was in general 
councils as representative of the episcopacy of the whole 
church, a view which coincided with his own. He added, 



496 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



that when there was a general council, especially when pre- 
sided over by a pope, or by a legate from the pope, and 
when the decisions received the approval of the pope, he 
thought there could be no fair exception against such deci- 
sions being received as infallible. 

I therefore said, " you acknowledge that some of the 
best and ablest theologians of your church, deny the infalli- 
bility of general councils, even, under the circumstances 
you propose ; you admit that they refuse to recognise these 
as an infallible court of appeal. They name another altoge- 
ther different, even the papal chalice itself ; now, as both 
they and you follow your own private judgment in the mat- 
ter, I see not why I may not follow mine also, and, with so 
many of your best and ablest theologians, refuse submission 
to the court which you suggest." 

He said at once, that their unhappy divisions created a 
difficulty, he could not remedy it, he could deplore it. 

I then said, that supposing I consented to carry the ap- 
peal to the court or tribunal of general councils, as he pro- 
posed, I was anxious to know, what it was that constituted 
the essentials of a general-council and how many there were. 

He replied that a general council was supposed to be an as- 
sembly of all the bishops of Christendom, a sort of parlia- 
ment, or convocation of all the bishops of Christendom, but 
he could not answer positively, as to the number, as there 
was much difference among their theologians, some assert- 
ing there were sixteen, some fourteen, some twelve, and 
some only eight. 

I said in return to this, that so wide a difference of opi- 
nion on so grave a question was] very serious. You differ 
among yourselves as to how many councils are infallible 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



497 



as being general councils ! I added, that for myself I had 
no doubt whatever, for if a general council is a council of 
all the bishops of Christendom, assembled to consult and 
decide on the questions before them, there never has been 
a real general council in the history of the church. 
He asked me what I meant. 

I replied, that all the eight Councils, usually called the 
first eight general councils, were held in the Eastern and 
not in the Western church — in the Greek and not in the 
Latin Church. And that, although it was believed that in the 
first council of Nice, there were some few bishops from the 
West, yet it is very certain that at the second of Constanti- 
nople, at the third at Nice, and the fourth at Constantinople, 
although all counted as general Councils, there was not a 
single Bishop from the churches of Western Europe, and 
it is most uncertain whether there were any either by person 
or by proxy in any of the others ! and thus these so-called 
general councils were not general councils at all, as repre- 
senting Universal Christendom, inasmuch as the Western 
Churches were altogether unrepresented ! 

He answered that he was not disposed to dispute that 
fact, for that there were so many hundreds of bishops pre- 
sent at these councils, that on that account, even if on no 
other, they might well be regarded as general councils, 
even though they might not actually realize the ideal. 

I said that we had scarcely entered upon the real difficul- 
ties of his hypothesis, which placed the Court of Appeal in 
the infallibility of these assemblies. I had no wish to assign 
my reasons for my unfavourable opinion of the way in which 
everything was managed in them. But I was obliged to ask 
on what principle some of these councils are received, and 



498 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



some of them rejected. I could myself, I said, reject them 
all, because not one of them responded to the ideal of a 
general council, but I could not comprehend the principle 
on which in the church of Rome some are received, and 
some are rejected. It could not be the respect and reve- 
rence due to the number of bishops who were present, be- 
cause those councils, which were remarkable as having been 
attended by the largest number ever known in the history 
of the church, are rejected and condemned by all writers 
in the church of Rome, while some that were attended by 
comparatively few, are received and recognized as general 
councils ! On what principle was this done ? The council 
of Ariminum, with 400 bishops, (a.d. 359,) and that of 
Carthage with 562 bishops (a.d. 411,) are both of them 
rejected, while the council of Constantinople with only 150 
bishops, (a.d. 381,) and that of Ephesus with only 200 
bishops (a.d. 481,) are received as general councils ! Now 
if general councils are to be held as infallible, it seems ne- 
cessary to determine with great accuracy, what constitutes 
a general council, seeing that the number of bishops does 
not do it. 

My friend was evidently perplexed at this startling fact. 
He seemed not to have been aware of it, and like many 
others had been carried away by some ideal of councils, and 
hearing of such assemblies, had been at no pains to ascer- 
tain, why some and not others were pronounced infallible, by 
being pronounced to be general. 

I therefore called his attention to another difficulty, and 
that was how the judgment of the council was to be taken, 
whether by votes or otherwise. The importance of this 
will appear from the fact, that in some councils, as that of 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



499 



Constance, (a,d. 1414,) they voted by nations, and not by 
bishops, that is, each nation had one vote, no matter how- 
many or how few were the bishops that belonged to it, so 
as that a nation with only ten bishops in the council, had 
as effectual a vote as a nation with an hundred bishops, and 
thus the ten bishops' vote went as far as the hundred bis- 
hops' vote. In other councils they voted otherwise. And 
then we may ask, whether the question is to be determined 
by the majority, especially by a bare majority, as in the coun- 
cil of 564 bishops who divided so closely that there were 
278 on the side of the Donatists, and 286 on the part of 
the Catholics — thus giving only a bare majority of eight in 
favour of the truth ! But this was but the beginning of 
difficulties, as sometimes the decision seems to have been 
the wrong way, as in the council of Sileucia, where 145 
bishops voted for Arianism, and only 15 voted for the truth. 
This raises the question as to whether the infallibility goes 
necessarily with majorities, as in this case Arianism was 
decreed, and the Trinity condemned by an overwhelming 
majority. Nor did I see how we could expect it otherwise, 
as there are evils inseparable from all such assemblies, es- 
pecially in ancient times, when long and distant journeys 
were dangerous. The bishops, whose age gave them wis- 
dom from experience, and those whose piety made them love 
attendance on their flocks, and those, whose gentleness re- 
coiled from the stormy discussions of councils, and whose 
bodily infirmities all conspired to keep them from the coun- 
cils, were absent, while the younger, more violent, more 
factious, and self-sufficient were able to accomplish the long 
and perilous voyage, and take part in discussions congenial 
to their passionate years. In such councils, it was the vio- 



500 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



lence of youth, rather than the experience of age determined 
every question, and it is therefore we are plunged into ano- 
ther inextricable difficulty by the fact that these councils 
have decided the same question, in opposite and different 
ways. " One general council at Constantinople, consisting 
of about 368 bishops, though others say there were only 
350, maintained the worship of them, yet as soon as this 
was known in the West, how active soever the see of Rome 
was for establishing their worship, a council of about 300 
bishops met at Frankfort under Charlemagne, which con- 
demned the Nicean council together with the worship of 
Images." Burnet, Art. xxii. The same spirit of contradic- 
tion prevailed afterwards, when the two councils, held at 
Constance, and at Basle, proclaimed the authority of coun- 
cils to be superior to that of popes, while at the same period 
the two other councils, that were convened at the Lateran 
and at Ferrara, declared the authority of popes to be supe- 
rior to that of councils ! Contradictions like these are a 
simple confutation of their claim to being infallible. 

Having pointed out these difficulties, I said, that before 
we could consent to appeal to the infallibility of councils, it 
would be necessary to determine what constitutes a general 
council — whether there ever has been really a general coun- 
cil — how the infallible decision is to be arrived at, whether 
by majorities or otherwise — whether a small or bare majo- 
rity, can be supposed to carry the infallibility with it — 
whether the majority having voted the wrong way deprives 
it of its infallibility — whether seeing that councils have de- 
cided in opposite and different ways, we have any means of 
determining which decision is the voice of infallibility. 

That my friend, though an astute and generally a very 



INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH. 



501 



adroit arguer on the infallibility of the church, was perplexed 
at these enquiries, is a matter of no surprise to me. I have 
observed some of the ablest advocates of Rome, on subjects 
on which they believed themselves unassailable, completely 
defeated by being taken in flank, instead of debating the 
question in their accustomed way. My friend was literally 
helpless, and he could not help acknowledging that the sub- 
ject was beset with difficulties, which he had not anticipated. 
Councils were beset with difficulties and contradictions, popes 
were entangled in difficulties, and worse than contradictions, 
while popes were opposed to popes, and councils were op- 
posed to councils, and councils were against popes, and in 
their turn popes were against councils, so that all seemed to 
us a chaos of inextricable entanglement, and amidst, around, 
and above them all, was that true infallibility, where was no 
contradiction — the infallibility of the God-inspired book, 
the holy scriptures. This voice of infallibility is pos- 
sessed by all our Protestant churches. To this we appeal 
in all our controversies, and to this— THE ONLY TRUE 
INFALLIBILITY— we invite our opponents. 



APPENDIX. 



THE ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 

THE QUESTION, WHERE WAS THE CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMA- 
TION, ANSWERED — THE ARGUMENT OF DEV ELOPEMENT CONSI- 
DERED THE NEW CREED OF POPE PIUS IV. ITS NEW ARTICLES 

OF FAITH, DETAILED THE ORIGIN AND NOVELTY OF EACH 

ARTICLE ILLUSTRATED AND THE NOVELTY OF THE RELIGION OF 

ROME DEMONSTRATED. 

It is scarcely possible to converse with members of the 
church of Rome on subjects of religion, without hearing 
much respecting the antiquity of their church. It is sup- 
posed by many among them to be a point on which she is un- 
assailable, especially when she is brought into comparison with 
the church of England or any of the Protestant churches. 

In every class of social life, as in every part of the world, 
the question is often proposed to us — 

Where was your church before luther ? 

In Ireland this question is usually answered by another, — 
namely, — 

Where was your face before it was washed ? 



504 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



This method of reply, has certainly more of point than of 
elegance, and suits the lively temper of the people far better 
than some dry and erudite rejoinder. But, however, inele- 
gant or vulgar it may be deemed, it contains the germ of the 
true answer, — the fittest and most effective answer to the 
argument supposed to be involved. 

The church of England, as also the other Protestant 
churches, were before the Reformation in the same place as 
they occupy since that event. And the difference is not in 
the locality, nor in the identity, but in the ^act, — the very 
intelligible fact that they had been unreformed and are now 
reformed, — had been corrupted and are now purified,— had 
been overlaid with errors and abuses, and are now cleansed. 
This is the real and only difference ; it is not in their identity 
but in their state, — not in their location but in their condi- 
tion. 

When our Lord, as is narrated in the gospels, entered the 
Temple at Jerusalem, we read, that he found it in a state 
wholly unbefitting its original and holy purposes ; he found 
it practically a market-place, where there was buying and 
selling, and traffic, and money-changing. And although 
all this was introduced for the convenience of the worship- 
pers, that they might have oxen, and sheep, and doves, 
which they could thus easily purchase for sacrificing, and 
that they might find no inconvenience from the want of 
money-changers to facilitate such purchases ; yet, much as 
might be said of its convenience, it was regarded by our 
Lord as a perversion from its original design, and an abuse 
of its original use. It is written that he made a scourge of 
small cords ; drove from the Temple those that bought and 
sold ; overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 



505 



seats of them that sold doves, and He told them that it had 
been designed as " a house of prayer," and that they had 
made it " a den of thieves." In all this He did not remove 
a pillar, nor change a column, nor destroy an ornament, nor 
close a window, nor impair the foundation. He left the 
Temple itself unchanged ; He only removed the corruptions 
and cast out the abuses. Just so, the Temple after the Re- 
formation was the same as before that event. 

This was the reformation of the sixteenth century. 

When in like manner, we repair any aged or venerable 
cathedral, — when time has impaired its stability, and years 
have generated an accretion of decay, and the moss has 
covered its aged walls, and the mould has traversed its 
noble arches, and the tendrils of the ivy have clasped its 
lofty pinnacles, and time is weakening its stately columns, 
and the worm is eating into its crumbling roof ; — when, 
anxious to preserve the venerable pile, we remove the 
moss that denies it, the ivy that injures it, and the decay 
that is destroying its beauty and marring its usefulness, 
we are surely not changing the identity, or the purposes 
of the edifice, — we assuredly are not removing its founda- 
tion, nor varying its architecture, but we are renovating the 
whole, and restoring the goodly fabric to its ancient beauty. 

Such was the reformation of the sixteenth century. 

That great event founded no new church, and established 
no new religion in the world. As the very term implies, it 
was only a purifying the church and religion of Christ from 
the corruptions and abuses which time and circumstances 
had introduced. It was emphatically a Reformation of the 
church and of religion, — it was not the invention of any- 
thing new, but the reforming of the old. 

Z 



504 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



This is the just, the only just view of the series of events 
connected with the Reformation ; and to attempt to meet it, 
by talking about the antiquity of the church, or the antiquity 
of the error, or the antiquity of the religion, — to attempt to 
meet it by thus talking about the antiquity of the system, 
is very little to the purpose. Buddhism and Hindooism, and 
the classic mythologies of Greece and of Rome, and the su- 
perstitions of Egypt, may claim a still higher and remoter 
antiquity. Mere antiquity in itself is nothing. And it were 
infinitely more satisfactory, and certainly more to the pur- 
pose, to prove that a church is true, than that it is old ; and to 
shew its religion to be conformable to the Holy Scriptures, 
than that it is of ancient standing. 

This argument, however, has lately undergone consider- 
able change, and its new phases effectually annihilate all that 
was of any importance in its original form. The new phase 
is that which has received the name of development. The 
idea involved is, that originally in the Christian Church, — 
in the Church of Christ, as taught by Himself, and as in- 
structed by His apostles, and as built up by the primitive 
Christians, — that in this, there was not the manifestation 
or development of the practices of the church of Rome, — 
that there were only the grains, or seeds, or germs, discern- 
ible in the early church, from which in after-times these 
doctrines and practices have manifested and developed 
themselves ; in other words, that transubstantiation, image- 
worship, Mariolatry, prayers to saints, worship of relics, 
purgatory, the sacrifice of the mass, indulgences, supremacy 
of Rome, and all her other peculiar doctrines and practices, 
are now in a state and condition widely different from 
primitive times, — that now they are extended, enlarged, 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 



507 



magnified, whereas formerly they existed only in the seed, or 
the bud, or the germ, — that now they constitute the great 
and grand essentials of the church of Rome, whereas, in 
primitive times they were in abeyance, held back, concealed, 
veiled, reserved, and unseen, and unknown, and unbelieved, 
except by the initiated few, — that thus all these doctrines in 
their present state are novel, at least different from former 
times, in other words they were now an expansion, an 
enlargement, an exaggeration, a development of the past ; 
or at least they are an unveiling of what was concealed 
before, and a teaching of what was untaught before. They 
assert, indeed, that the church of Rome now holds nothing, 
but what she held from the beginning ; but only that 
she holds such things in a different way, and in a different 
degree, and to a different extent ; — that she held such things 
in primitive times in the germ, and that she holds them in 
the present age in their development ; they were then the 
acorn, and are now the gigantic oak. 

It may be seen, that there is in the essence of this argu- 
ment, all that neutralizes the old argument founded on the 
supposed antiquity of these doctrines and practices. It 
shows that they all have undergone a change, and that they 
are now in a state very different from formerly. Some may 
call this novelty, others may give it the fanciful name of 
development. It certainly is an admission of some change, 
— a strange admission for a church, for which its advocates 
claim the attributes of unchangeableness, and the prerogative 
of infallibility. 

The simple truth is, that the old claim to antiquity, — the 
old argument, that her doctrines and practices were those of 
primitive Christianity, has been exposed and annihilated by 

Z 2 



508 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 

the progress of modern research. Her advocates have been 
necessitated to retreat, and now endeavour to hide their 
retreat under the name of — development ! 

Nor could they do otherwise than retreat from this argu- 
ment of antiquity. The advocates of Protestant Christi- 
anity laid before the world the three ancient creeds of the 
Churches — the Apostles' Creed — the Nicene Creed — the 
Athanasian Creed. They have shewn these to have been 
the only Creeds of the primitive Churches, and they are 
acknowledged as such by all the writers of the church 
of Rome. In these, the belief of the primitive churches 
— in these, which embody all the articles of the faith of 
Christ as then received, and believed, and professed — in 
these there is no allusion whatever, no allusion however 
remote or shadowy, to any one of those doctrines, which 
constitute the essence of the church of Rome. These three 
creeds — the creeds of primitive Christianity, contain no 
allusion to modern Romanism, no allusion to transubstan- 
tiation, Mariolatry, invocation of saints, worship of relics, 
purgatory, sacrifice of the mass, indulgences, supremacy 
of Rome, &c. — but pass them by as if they had been utterly 
unknown, and unheard of, and unbelieved. 

And the church of Rome has felt the importance of all 
this argument, and she has compiled a new creed — a new 
creed ! Having examined the Nicene Creed, and hav- 
ing seen that her new and favorite doctrines were not em- 
bodied in it, she went boldly to the work and has actually 
inserted them into it — has actually appended twelve new 
articles to this ancient creed to make it speak in her favour ! 
This she did in the year 1564. 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 



509 



The following are the additional articles, thus newly in- 
vented, and then first inserted in the Nicene Creed. 

I. "I most steadily admit and embrace apostolical and 
ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and 
constitutions of the same church. 

II. "I also admit the Holy Scriptures according to the 
sense which our Holy Mother the Church has held and 
does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense 
and interpretation of the Scriptures ; neither will I ever 
take and interpret them otherwise than according to the 

UNANIMIOUS CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. 

III. " I also profess that there are truly and properly 
seven sacraments of the new law instituted by Jesus Christ 
our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, 
though not all for every one ; to wit, baptism, confirma- 
tion, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, matri- 
mony ; and that they confer grace ; and that of these, bap- 
tism, confirmation, and orders, cannot be reiterated with- 
out sacrilege. 

IV. "I also receive and admit the received and approved 
ceremonies of the Catholic church, used in the solemn 
administration of the foresaid sacraments. 

V. " I embrace and receive all and every one of the 
things which have been defined and declared by the Holy 
Council of Trent, concerning original sin and justifi- 
cation. 

VI. "I profess likewise, that in the Mass there is offered 
to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the liv- 
ing and the dead, and that in the most holy sacrifice of the 
eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially, the body 
and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord 



510 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Jesus Christ, and that there is made a conversion of the 
whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the 
whole substance of the wine into the blood ; which con- 
version, the catholic church calls Tran substantiation. 

VII. <f I also confess, that under either kind alone, 
Christ is received whole and entire, and a true sacrament. 

VIII. " I certainly hold that there is a Purgatory, and 
that the souls therein detained, are helped by the suf- 
frages of the faithful ; likewise that the saints reigning 
together with Christ, are to be honored and invocated, and 
that they offer prayer to God for us, and that their relics 
are to be held in veneration. 

IX. " I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of 
the Mother of God, ever virgin, and also of other saints, 
may be had and retained, and that due honor and venera- 
tion are to be given to them. 

X. " I also affirm that the power of indulgences was 
left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is 
most wholesome to Christian people. 

XI. " I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, 
Roman church for the Mother and Mistress of all 
churches ; and I promise true obedience to the bishop of 
Rome, successor to St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and 
vicar of Jesus Christ. 

XII. "I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all 
other things delivered, defined, and declared in the sacred 
canons and general councils, and particularly by the holy 
council of Trent. And I condemn, reject, and anathe- 
matize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies which 
the church has condemned, rejected, and anathematized. 
I do, at this present, freely profess and sincerely hold this 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 511 



Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved, and I 
promise most constantly to retain and confess the same 
entire and inviolate, with God's assistance, to the end of 
my life." 

Such are the novel doctrines of the church of Rome. 
They were not contained in any ancient creed — in any pri- 
mitive creed of the primitive churches, and therefore the 
church of Rome has been obliged to invent a new creed to 
contain them, or rather she has interpolated one of the an- 
cient creeds by the addition of these twelve novel articles. 
To this new compilation has been given the name — the ex- 
pressive name of the creed of Pope Pius IV. It certainly 
is not the creed of Christ's church. 

And this new creed — this creed of the Roman Church, 
was first compiled in 1564 ! They sometimes ask — where 
was your church before Luther ? — where was your church 
before Henry VIII ? One might suppose that their own 
creed was of some high and remote antiquity, when they 
propose such questions ; although Luther was dead and 
buried, and Henry VIII. was gathered to his fathers, many 
years before this religion or creed of the church of Rome 
was compiled ! 

But let us descend to details. 

It has often been argued against me by the advocates of 
Rome, that if we have rejected her peculiar doctrines on ac- 
count of their supposed novelty, we ought to be able to 
specify the precise time, when each novelty was introduced 
into the church. 

I have always closed at once with my opponents on this 
argument, and have undertaken to prove the precise date of 



512 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



every doctrine. I have declared my willingness to do this, 
while at the same time I felt it was not necessary for my 
position. A man is not to be supposed to have lived from the 
beginning of the world, merely because he cannot prove the 
precise day of his birth. And a doctrine is not to be deemed 
to have been from the beginning of Christianity, merely 
because we cannot specify the date of its invention ; indeed, 
we are warned that men " shall privily bring in damnable 
heresies," and we are fore-cautioned that they shall " creep 
in unawares" and we are reminded that it was " while men 
slept the enemy sowed the tares." These words imply that 
we should not be able to detect precisely the origin of 
error. But although we may be unable to ascertain the 
exact moment that gave birth to the error, yet we may be 
able to determine with exactitude, the time when the error 
was formally adopted and recognized and avowed by the 
church of Rome — when the error was no longer a floating 
and unauthorized opinion, but became adopted into the 
canons, and embodied in the formularies of that Church. 

These may be considered seriatim. 

I. Tradition. 

The first article is on Tradition. It has been justly said of 
Tradition, that it is appealed to as the origin of every false 
religion, and for the support of every error engrafted 
upon true religion. It was the argument of the advocates 
of the Greek and Roman mythology in defence of their 
system — it was the argument of the Jewish Pharisees in 
support of the continuance of their law — it was still the ar- 
gument of the Brahmin in behalf of his Hindooism, and of 
the Buddhist in support of his Buddhism — it is the argument 
of all error against Christianity. 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 



513 



The doctrine therefore of the church of Rome respecting 
Tradition cannot he regarded as novel. It is as old as hea- 
thenism itself. But the adoption of the principle that tra- 
dition is to be placed on a level with Scripture — that tra- 
ditionary doctrines and practices are to be " received and 
venerated with equal piety and reverence," with the doc- 
trines and practices taught in Holy Scriptures — the adop- 
tion of this principle into the church of Rome is undoubtedly 
a novelty. It never was affirmed till the Council of Trent 
in 1545. In all previous councils — in all those that had 
been held from the beginning of Christianity, it never be- 
fore was asserted that the traditions of the church were to 
be K received and venerated with equal piety and reverence " 
with the Holy Scriptures of God. And this novel article 
was then and there adopted for the first time in the history 
of Christianity, and then and there adopted for a purpose. 
They could not confute the arguments of the Reformers 
from the Holy Scriptures. They had nothing to advance but 
antiquated opinions which they said were traditionary : and 
to justify this, they framed and adopted this principle — this 
novel article of faith in 1545, and inserted into their creed 
in 1564. 

The same may be said of her insertion of the apocryphal 
books into the canon. They never were received as inspired 
by the Jewish church ; they were on the other hand rejected 
as such, as Josephus testifies ; they never were admitted into 
the canon of Holy Scripture, by the primitive church, and 
they are excluded from each and every ancient list of canon- 
ical books, and it was never till the council of Trent in 1545 
that these apocryphal books were received into the canon, 
and thence the article was inserted in the new creed in 1564, 
Z 5 



514 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



and was so inserted for no better reason than the notion 
that they gave some color to one or two of the practices of 
the church of Rome. 

II. The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. 

This second article of the creed of Rome pledges its 
members to interpret the Holy Scriptures in accordance with 
the teaching of that church, and only according to the unani- 
mous interpretation of the Fathers. 

This article thus bears on its face, the fact that it was 
not composed or received till after the Fathers, that is, till 
after the primitive church had passed away : and it goes on 
the assumption that the Fathers were unanimous in such 
interpretation, whereas there is no fact more certain than 
that upon all those portions of the sacred volume, upon 
which there is diversity of interpretation at the present day, 
there was -as great and wide a diversity among the Fathers ; 
so that if the members of the church of Rome are bound to 
interpret Scripture only according as there is a unanimous 
interpretation among the Fathers, they will be necessitated 
to abandon all interpretation whatever, inasmuch as there 
is no unanimity among the Fathers. The celebrated text, 
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," is a re- 
markable illustration of this : for, as the Fathers differed 
among themselves as to the true purport of these words, so 
no Romanist, according to this article of his creed, has any 
right to give to these words any interpretation ; and the 
discourse of our Lord in John vi. is another example, for 
the Council itself has placed on record, a statement that 
the Fathers were divided in their interpretation of it. 
The truth is, that the Fathers were as divided as ourselves, 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 



515 



and there never existed among them any unanimity of in- 
terpretation. 

This article was invented in order to counteract the reading 
of the Scriptures, now getting into circulation through the 
discovery of printing, and in order to counteract the use which 
the Protestants made of the sacred volume. It never was 
known or heard of in the Church of Christ till invented at 
the Council of Trent, and inserted in this creed in 1564. 

III. The seven sacraments. 

There are two sacraments received among reformed 
Christians. The church of Rome holds that there are seven, 
by adding Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and 
Extreme Unction. 

Confirmation is practically a useful custom among us, but 
has not the essentials of a sacrament. Penance was a cus- 
tom adopted among the heathen, and is not peculiar to 
Christians, and certainly has not the nature of a sacrament, 
Repentance indeed, is a Christian grace, but not a sacrament. 
Orders is also held among us, but it has not the essentials 
of a sacrament. Matrimony commenced in Eden, and can- 
not be a sacrament of the gospel, being long anterior to it. 
Extreme Unction is an abuse — a superstitious abuse of the 
rite of anointing the sick, originally used for the miraculous 
healing the sick according to the words " they anointed 
with oil many that were sick and healed them." It was in 
order to their miraculous healing. When the age of mira- 
cles ceased, this rite should also have ceased, but when su- 
perstitious persons saw that it wrought no good to the 
body, they sagely concluded that perhaps — possibly — mav 
be — it did some unknown good to the soul ; and thus it con- 
tinues in the church of Rome. 



516 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



- By means of these five pretended sacraments, added to the 
two real sacraments ordained by Christ, the church of Rome 
has completed the number of seven. And yet that number 
seems unfortunate as being of all the most calculated to ex- 
hibit the novelty of the article, and the diversity of opinion 
alike. Ambrose, with a host of antiquity, declares that 
there are only two sacraments. Isidore avows his belief in 
only three, Alexander declares for four, an author named 
Cyprian asserts Jive to be the true number, of which one is 
the washing of the feet ! Durandus declares for only six, 
rejecting matrimony as not a sacrament, and Peter Lombard 
teaches that there are seven. 

This Peter Lombard was the first who ever taught that 
there were seven sacraments; he lived in the Xllth century. 
It was not adopted however in the church of Rome for 
three centuries afterwards. This took place at the Council 
of Florence in 1439, from w T hich it was adopted by the 
Council of Trent and inserted in this creed. 

IV. Sacramental Ceremonies. 

It was a very strange idea to insert a clause into a creed, 
making sacramental ceremonies an Article of Faith. It 
was the more strange as the ceremonies are confessedly of 
modern growth. The anointing with the oil of the chrism 
in Confirmation was no part of the original rite. Confession 
was originally public, and it was not till the fifth century 
that, owing to some awkward confession, which affected 
the moral character of one of the priests then officiating, 
it was suppressed, lest other similar confessions should lead 
to the publication of similar scandals. Private confession, 
or as it is called Auricular Confession, was then introduced. 
Private penances were never used till the seventh century, 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 



517 



and their commutation for alms begun only in the ninth. 
As for the ceremonies connected with Orders, they were 
altogether unknown till the eleventh century : and are not 
found in any ancient ordinal. The ceremonies connected 
with Matrimony need not be noticed, as in all countries 
they are variable. Those which accompany Extreme Unction 
were invented in the twelfth century, and were not settled 
till the fifteenth. Those connected with Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper are admitted by all parties to be many of 
them novel. As long as such arrangements are not unscrip- 
tural they may well be borne with, but it seems an intoler- 
able thing to constitute them an Article of Faith. This 
was never done till this novel creed was compiled in 1564. 

V. Original Sin and Justification. 

The doctrines of the church of Rome on these points 
are not liable to the charge of novelty. They made their 
appearance at the beginning. And St. Paul wrote his 
Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians in order to 
confute and suppress them. 

These doctrines were never avowed by any Council or 
any authority till the Council of Trent. Indeed this seems 
admitted, for the Article of the Creed requires the belief, 
not of these doctrines as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, 
but only as defined by the Council of Trent. At least the 
Creed demands no more ancient authority ; and certainly 
they were never embodied in any creed till 1564. 

VI. The Mass and Transubstantiation. 

And first, for the Mass. The practice of private Masses, 
that is, Masses for the priest alone, without a congregation, 
was unknown for many centuries ; and when it was first 
introduced, it was condemned by the Council of Metz in 



518 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



the ninth century, and did not become general till the 
twelfth ; and the doctrine, that the Mass was a true, proper, 
propitiatory sacrifice for sin, was never adopted by any 
Council till that of Trent, in 1545, from which it was 
transferred to this creed. 

And then, for Transubstantiation. The first book ever 
written in which the word " Transnbstantiation " occurs, 
was in the tenth century ; and a certain Bishop of Autun 
has had the honour of the invention. This is admitted by 
our opponents ; but they hold that the doctrine which that 
wgrd represents was of earlier origin. And this is true ; 
but it is apparent also, that the first book ever written in 
support of that doctrine, was that written by Paschase 
Radbert in 831. And this is admitted by all the ablest 
writers of the church of Rome ; as also that the first time 
it was adopted formally and proclaimed, authoritatively by 
that church, was at the Council of Lateran in 1225. 

VII. Half-communion. 

The practice of Half-communion, or communion in one 
kind, in the bread without the cup, is of* very modern 
origin ; some notice of its history will be found in one of 
the preceding conversations. All the writers of the church 
of Rome acknowledge that it was not received before the 
twelfth century. " It appears," says Delahogue, the author 
of the theological class-book of the Roman Catholic college 
of Maynooth ; " that from the days of the Apostles until 
the twelfth century, the custom prevailed, that the Eucharist 
should be received by the laity in both kinds, as is observed 
in the Greek church at the present day ; but from the 
twelfth century the custom of distributing the Eucharist to 
the faithful in one kind only was gradually confirmed." 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 



519 



This practice thus gradually became general, though 
with great opposition in some countries, till the Council of 
Constance in 1414, when, for the first time in the history 
of the church, it was formally adopted. 

VIII. Purgatory, invocation of Saints, and veneration of 
relics. 

This article contains three particulars. 
First, Purgatory. 

The nature and character of the doctrine of Purgatory is 
stated in the preceding conversations. Our present object 
is its origin ; and it must at once be admitted that it is 
very ancient, having had its origin in the opinions of the 
heathens, who preceded the introduction of Christianity ; 
when therefore, the heathen in the times of Constantine 
made a formal profession of Christianity, not from any real 
reception of its truth, but in a desire to please the imperial 
court, they retained this and other of their heathen notions 
of religion. The introduction of a belief in Purgatory in 
the Christian church thus was in the fourth century ; it 
exhibited itself openly in the fifth, and seems to have been 
first taught publicly by pope Gregory I., about the year 600. 
Monks and Friars soon founditan ample source of wealth, and 
therefore naturally became its most enthusiastic promoters. 
They found the gold of the alchemist in the fires of Pur- 
gatory ! 

Fisher, a Bishop of the church of Rome, states, "the 
Latins did not receive the truth of this matter at once, but 
by little, and little ; nor indeed was faith in either purgatory 
or indulgence so necessary in the primitive church as at 
present." This simple confession shews it was not formally 
received at first. Indeed it was for the first time formally 



520 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



pronounced a doctrine of the church of Rome at the Coun- 
cil of Florence in 1439. 

Secondly. Invocation of Saints. 

The original of this practice is shewn in the preceding con- 
versations as found in the old mythology; and as such, 
being only a baptized heathenism, regarded and denounced 
as such by all the wise and good of the primitive church. 
It is therefore clear that there is nothing to sanction it in 
primitive Christianity ; and this is admitted by the learned of 
the church of Rome. The Jesuit Salmeron confesses, that 
" it would have been a hard thing to impose on the Jews. 
And it would have given occasion to the Gentiles to think a 
multitude of gods was imposed upon them, instead of the 
multitude of gods which they had forsaken." And Dela- 
hogue says, " If many monuments of the invocation of 
saints are not to be found in the first and second centuries, 
that ought not to appear strange, for as persecutions were 
raging, the pastors of the churches were more anxious to 
instruct and prepare the faithful for martyrdom than to 
write books." And thus the fact is admitted, however 
they labour for explanations, that this practice formed no 
part of pure and primitive Christianity. 

It was a practice however, that was introduced by the con- 
verts from heathenism, and so became very general, though 
never authoritatively sanctioned, but was adopted formally for 
the first time by the Council of Trent in 1545. 

Thirdly. The veneration of relics. 

The impositions connected with this gross superstition 
have long made all good men ashamed of it, as a disgrace 
and scandal to Christendom. Its origin was superstition ; 
its support priestcraft, and its end avarice. 



ANTIQUITY OP THE CHURCH. 



521 



IX. Worship of Images. 

The learned Erasmus states, that " even to the times of 
St. Jerome those who were of the true religion would suffer 
no image either graven or painted in the church ; no, not 
even the picture of Christ ; " and Delahogue admits that it 
was not allowed for three hundred years, lest it should look 
like the custom of the heathens, and seem to give a sanc- 
tion to their images. This admission is sufficient to prove 
it was no part of pure and primitive Christianity. Cornelius 
Agrippa, another of their authors, honestly states — "The 
false religion of the heathen has infected our religion, and 
brought images and pictures into the church, with many 
ceremonies of external pomp, none of which were found 
among the first and true Christians." 

Unhappily, in order to multiply the number of professed 
converts, the heathen were allowed to retain their ancient 
images. In many instances images of the heathen gods 
were baptized by the names of Christian saints, and were 
thus adopted into the church. To restrain this evil, the 
Council of Constantinople, at which there were 338 bishops, 
condemned the use of images in the year 754, and ordered 
them to be removed from the churches ; but shortly after- 
wards, under the unholy influence of Irene, the practice 
was formally sanctioned and adopted at the Council that 
met at Nice, and at which 350 bishops were assembled, in 
the year 786. This was afterwards condemned at the 
Council of Frankfort in 790 by 300 bishops. It was finally 
adopted by the church of Rome, at the Council of Trent 
in 1545. 

X. Indulgences. 

All the writers of the church of Rome acknowledge In- 



522 



EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



diligences as a modern invention, that is, that they were 
unknown in the primitive Church, and had their origin 
about the twelfth century. 

Cardinal Cajetan states, " If there could be certainty ar- 
rived at about the commencement of indulgences, it would 
avail us much in finding the truth, but there is no authority 
of Scripture or ancient fathers, either Greek or Latin, that 
gives us any knowledge of them." And Alphonsus a 
Castro acknowledges, " There is nothing in Scripture less 
opened, and about which the ancient fathers have written 
less, than about indulgences, and it seems that the use of 
them came but lately into the Church." These admissions 
seem sufficient to prove the novelty of this article of the 
creed of Rome. Indeed, though very general in that 
church from the twelfth century, and though they led to 
the first outbreak of the Reformation, yet they never were 
defined and sanctioned by any council till that of Trent in 
1545. They were long before employed by the popes for 
purposes of a financial nature, but they were never adopted 
formally and authoritatively by the church of Rome till 
that Council. 

XI. The supremacy of the church of Rome. 

That this clause of the Creed involves a positive untruth 
as a matter of historical fact, has been already shewn in 
the conversation on the pretended supremacy of the church 
of Rome. 

That the bishops of Rome should have been regarded as 
more than ordinary bishops is not improbable, considering 
that Rome was the capital city of the Western Empire, as 
were the bishops of Constantinople on account of its being 
the capital of the Eastern Empire. But as to either of 



ANTIQUITY OF THE CHURCH. 



523 



them possessing authority or supremacy over the other 
bishops of Christendom, the thing never was thought of 
till the close of the sixth century, and then the claim was 
advanced, not by the bishop of Rome, but by the bishop 
of Constantinople! It was he who first claimed this supre- 
macy, and so little was the rest of Christendom prepared 
for it — so little were the bishops of Rome prepared for 
such a claim on the part of any bishop in the world, that 
Gregory I., the then bishop of Rome declared the assump- 
tion of such a claim was a mark of the Antichrist ! He 
says in one of his letters, ' e Saint Peter was not called a 
Universal Apostle, and yet, lo ! my fellow-priest John 
seeks to be called the universal bishop ! O tempora, O 
mores ! Europe is now exposed a prey to the barbarians, 
and yet the priests, who should lay themselves in the dust, 
and weep and roll themselves in ashes, are seeking in a 
spirit of vanity, and boasting themselves in new-found and 
profane titles." And in another epistle he says, " I have 
advertised him of that haughty and superstitious title of 
universal bishop, and that unless he reform it, he can 
have no place with us, for if there be any bishop so called, 
then must the universal church fall to the ground, if he 
who is the universal bishop fall into error ; may such folly 
never befal us ! " And again, " I speak boldly, whoever 
calls himself, or desires to be called by others, universal 
bishop or priest, is the forerunner of Antichrist." Such 
was the language of Gregory the Great, who was at that 
time the bishop of Rome. He little thought of the claims 
of his successors. 

When, however, Phocas murdered the Emperor, the 
next bishop of Rome claimed this very title of Universal 



524 EVENINGS WITH THE ROMANISTS. 



Bishop, and Phocas applied all his imperial power to enforce 
the claim. 

XII. The Council of Trent. 

This clause of the Creed refers to the Canons of Trent, 
and is for that very reason an essentially novel article of 
faith. It could not have had existence before the close of 
that Council, and indeed, first found its place in the Creed 
of 1564. 

Such are the twelve new articles of Faith — the articles 
which are to be found in no one ancient Creed of any one 
of the Churches of Christ — the articles which are the dis- 
tinctive peculiarity of the church of Rome, and the essence 
of her religion — the twelve new articles of Faith, which 
have been added to the ancient Nicene Creed, and form 
now the Creed of the church of Rome. It was a Creed 
compiled many years after Luther was laid in his grave, 
after Henry VIII., was gathered to his fathers, and thus 
was by many years more novel and modern than the Refor- 
mation ! 



FINIS. 



L. Seeley, Thames Ditton. 



Recently Published. 



A PILGRIMAGE TO ROME. 

By the Rev. M. Hobart Seymour, M.A. 
Fourth Edition, crown octavo, with Engravings, price 8s. 6d. cloth. 

Also, by the same Author. 

MORNINGS WITH THE JESUITS AT ROME, 

Fifth Edition, enlarged, crown octavo, price 7s, cloth. 

CERTAINTY UNATTAINABLE IN THE 
ROMISH COMMUNION. 

Price 3s. 6d. cloth. 



THE TALBOT CASE. 

FROM THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 

With a Preface by the Rev. M. Hobart Seymour, M.A. 
Crown octavo, price 3s. 6d. cloth. 



Recently Published. 



i. 

SISTER AGNES : or the Captive Nun. A Picture of 
Convent Life. By a Clergyman's Widow. Six Engravings, 
price 5s. cloth. 

ii. 

MEMORIALS OF THE ENGLISH MARTYRS. By 
the Rev. C. B. Tayler, M.A., Rector of Qtley, Suffolk, 8vo. 
price 14s. cloth. 

in. 

THE JESUITS ; An Historical Sketch. By E. W. Grin- 
field, M, A. 12mo. price 6s. cloth. 

IV. 

THE SECRET HISTORY OF ROMANISM. By the 

Rev, Dawson Massey, M.A., with an Introductory Essay, by 
the Rev. Godfrey Massey, B.A. Second Edition, enlarged, 
12mo., price 5s. cloth. 

v. 

NUNS AND NUNNERIES ; Sketches compiled entirely 

from Romish Authorities, 12mo. price 5s. cloth. 

VI. 

THE MISSION AND MARTYRDOM OF ST. PETER: 

containing the original-text of all the passages in ancient writers, 
supposed to imply a journey from the East, with Translations 
and Roman Catholic comments : showing that there is not the 
least sign in antiquity of the alleged fact, nor even of there 
having been a tradition to that effect ; with Prefatory Notices, 
by the Rev. Alexander McCaul, D.D., and the Rev. John 
Cumming, D.D. By Thomas Collings Simon, Esq. Octavo, 
price 7s. cloth. 

VII. 

ROMANISM AS IT EXISTS IN ROME ; exhibited in 
Various Inscriptions and other Documents in the Churches and 
other Ecclesiastical places in that City. Collected by the Hon. 
J. W. Percy. In crown octavo, price os. cloth. 



VIII. 

BEGUILEMENT TO ROMANISM. A Personal Nar- 
rative. By Eliza Smith. In foolscap octavo, price 2s. 6d. 

IX. 

TWO PROTESTANT LECTURES: T. On Scripture 

being the Property of all. II. On the Necessity of Divine 

Teaching. By a Country Clergyman. 12mo. price Is. 

x. 

THE JESUITS AS THEY WERE AND ARE : from 
the German of Duller. Translated by Mrs. Stanley Carr. 
With a Preface by Sir Culling Eardly, Bart. In foolscap 
octavo, price 3s. 6d. cloth. 

XI. 

THE STATUTES OF THE FOURTH GENERAL 

COUNCIL OF LATERAN. Recognized and Established by 
Subsequent Councils and Synods, down to the Council of Trent. 
By the Rev. John Evans, M.A. In octavo, price 4s. 6d. cloth. 

XII. 

THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS of the First and Second 
Centuries; their principal remains at large; with selections from 
their other writings. By the Rev. E. Bickersteth. Foolscap 
octavo, price 5s. cloth. 

XIII. 

THE TESTIMONY OF THE REFORMERS ; Selected 
from the writings of Cranmer, Jewel, Tyndal, Ridley, Becon, 
Bradford, &c. With Introductory Remarks by the Rev. E 
Bickersteth. In foolscap octavo, price 6s. cloth. 

XIV. 

VIGILATIUS AND HIS TIMES. By W. S. Gilly, B.D. 
Canon of Durham, and Vicar of Norham. In octavo, price 12s. 
cloth. 

xv. 

IRELAND AND HER CHURCH. In Three Parts. 
By the Very Rev. Richard Murray, D.D. In octavo, price 
10s. 6d. cloth. 

XVI. 

THE SUPPRESSION OF THE REFORMATION IN 

FRANCE, as exhibited in de Rulhiere's Historical Elucidations 
and various other Documents. By D. D. Scott. In 12mo., 
price 6s. cloth. 



XVII. 

VINDICIJE ANGLICANS : England's right against 
Papal wrong ; being an attempt to suggest the legislation by 
which it ought to be asserted. With an Introductory letter to 
Lord John Russell. By one who has sworn " faithfully to ad- 
vise the Queen." 8vo. price 2s. 6d. 

XVIII. 

ROME AND ENGLAND; the Two Churches, the Two 
Reformations, and the Two Creeds. A Lecture. By the Rev. 
Robert McGhee, M.A. 12mo., price 3d. sewed. 
Also by the same Author. 

XIX. 

THE OLD CREED OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 
AND THE NEW CREED OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 
To which is added answers to the question — Where was your 
Church before Luther? Price Id. or 6s. per hundred. 

xx . 

ROMANISM AS IT RULES IN IRELAND. Two Vols. 
8vo., price 24s. cloth. 

THE NOTES OF THE DOUAY BIBLE AND RHEM- 

ISH TESTAMENT; 8vo. price 14s. cloth. 

XXII. 

JUSTICE FOR IRELAND ; or, the Rejected Memorial. 
8vo., price Is. sewed. 

XXIII. 

REFLECTIONS ON THE ENDOWMENT OF THE 
COLLEGE OF MAYNOOTH, and on the Doctrine of Expe- 
diency. 8vo. price 2s. sewed. 

XXIV. 

THE ANCIENT FAITH of the Holy Roman Catholic 
Church Demonstrated in a Lecture. 8vo. price Is. Gd. sewed. 

XXV. 

THE LAWS OF THE PAPACY, as set up by the Bis- 
hops of the Church of Rome in Ireland, to subvert the Authority 
of the Queen of England. Dedicated to Her Majesty. One Vol. 
12mo., Second Edition, price 6s. 

XXVI. 

NO TRUE ALLEGIANCE TO A PROTESTANT 

SOVEREIGN permitted by the CHURCH OF ROME. In 
octavo, price Is. 6d. cloth. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



